Valerie Jarrett straight up lies about Obamacare premiums

We all know President Obama ‘misspoke’ when he repeatedly told the American people they would be able to keep their doctors under Obamacare. But it is unclear what President Obama’s senior advisor Valerie Jarrett’s excuse is. During an appearance on the Los Angeles CBS affiliate on Monday, Jarrett blatantly lied about the effect Obamacare has had on heathcare premiums.

Check out Jarrett’s comments below:

“Wow. Where do you start with that,” Glenn asked exasperatedly on radio this morning. “She said that the healthcare premiums have less increase than ever before in the last 50 years. I want to come back to that. But I would just start with: You’re talking about less increase than the last 50 years. What happened to the $2,500 decrease for every family in America? What happened?”

You may recall President Obama made this promise while stumping for Obamacare:

“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

But even the left-leaning PoltiFact found that to be untrue. Four years after the law has been implemented, however, the President’s cronies are still regurgitating the same old lies.

This type of disinformation campaign should not exist in a country with a free press. But the fact that the President and his administration can consistently lie to the American people proves the media is either A) unarmed with the actual facts ahead of these interview or B) nothing more that a shill.

“What happened to the $2,500 per family decrease? What happened to that one? That’s what I would like the reporter to say,” Glenn explained. “It’s very easy to sit and play Monday morning quarterback when you’re watching some of these journalists. Some of these journalists… are shills. But a lot of times… they will say something and you’ll be like, ‘I don’t think that’s true’… but you have nothing to back it up other than, ‘I don’t think that’s true.’”

Ultimately, Pat just wishes we could find a group of politicians are who are willing to tell the truth, even when it’s not flattering. It’s a wish that is unlikely to ever come true, but we can dream.

“It’s a flat out lie,” Pat said of Jarrett’s comments. “I’d rather the Administration tell the truth from time to time. I mean I’m not asking for perfect… That’s my preference.”

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV
  • Anonymous

    They will continue to lie, lie, lie and then lie some more! It is all that they do! And the low info (stupid) people will keep on…….keeping on!

  • landofaahs

    Democrats don’t care if they have to lie in order to get what they want. The only time lies matter to them is if it’s used against them. Even the lives of the unborn babies are expendable in order to them. Frankly democrat and lie should be considered interchangeable terms.

  • Anonymous

    Obama actually said “comprehensive reform, plus some effort to reduce costs from labor unions, and insurance, drug and medical industries, could save families $2,500 in the coming years”. That statement is worth question for sure, but it could be true over time. Where Jarrett deserves criticism is on her statement that premiums are lowest in 50 years. That’s not true. What is true is that medical inflation is lowest since 1962 according to the medical segment of the consumption expenditure price index. Stew references Politifact’s false rating of the President’s statement on premium decreases (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/04/barack-obama/obama-said-health-care-premiums-went-slower-any-ti/). Politifact also says it’s true that medical expenditures are at a 50-year low by data other than the consumption expenditure price index. Anyway, Beck does more complaining than objective analysis, of course. Plus, he usually turns his complaints in to a reason to pay for the Blaze. Beck’s greatest talent is salesman.

  • Helen Christopher

    I’ve&nbspΜ­­­­­а­­­­­d­­­­­℮&nbsp$­­­­64,000&nbspso&nbspfar&nbspthis&nbspyear &nbspW­­­­­­օ­­­­­­r­­­­­­κing&nbspfrom&nbspthe&nbspі­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­℮­­­­­­τ&nbspand&nbspI’m&nbspa&nbspfull&nbsptime &nbspstudent.&nbspIm&nbspusing&nbspan &nbspօ­­­­­ո­­­­­l­­­­­i­­­­­ո­­­­­℮&nbspbusiness&nbspopportunity&nbspI &nbspheard&nbspabout&nbspand&nbspI’ve &nbspgot&nbspр­­­­­а­­­­­i­­­­­d&nbspsuch&nbspgreat&nbspΜ­­­­­օ­­­­­ո­­­­­℮­­­­­У.&nbspIt’s&nbspactually&nbspuser&nbspfriendly &nbspand&nbspI’m&nbspjust&nbspso&nbsphappy &nbspthat&nbspI&nbspfound&nbspout&nbspabout &nbspit.&nbspհ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r­­­­­­℮s&nbspwhat&nbspI&nbspdo,…&nbsphttp://Googlejobcreation2014openv8yjw

    ❤❤❤ ❤❤❤ ❤❤❤ ❤❤⟁❤ ❤❤❤Frankly democrat and lie should be considered interchangeable terms.

  • Anonymous

    Wow…what planet is she from? Most people I know have had their premiums skyrocket, added with that huge family deductibles and escalated co-payments. She is just a babbling fool and lackey. Anyone who is still under the delusion that the laughably named affordable care act was about you or your family’s health care is beyond help. It’s a control mechanism, nothing more; a Marxist tenet and dream. Thus, the perpetuating of all the lies and blatant distortions to keep it in place. If it was so wonderful, then why do those (democrats) who voted for it want to exempt their elite selves and why the ads and other ludicrous nonsense to try and get people signed up. Answer: Because it’s trash and anyone who’s paying attention knows it. Vote out all democrats starting with the 2014 midterms (no Republicans voted for the scam) and then on to 2016 finish the job. Kick them to the curb.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72EnfFysPFE Connor

    Left please just give it up. You know this law is a failure. No denying it.

  • Mark Lugo

    who is believing this crap?

  • Anonymous

    THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY WILL DO ANYTHING TO DESTROY AMERICA AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM ARE TRAITORS

  • http://www.absoluteintensity.com dennis reilly

    jarrett offered to pay anyones increase out of her own pocket, then reneged

  • http://www.absoluteintensity.com dennis reilly

    she fails to name names like all the politicians

  • Gdrake

    Amen

  • Dulcie A. Covington

    You know, when I was growing up I was taught tell the truth. As I grew older, I realized that sometimes white lies are needed so you spare someones feelings or don’t act like knucklehead. But, the government lies and we applaud, we see our country crumbling under the current administration and we applaud. We vote in a know nothing organizer who was in the senate for how long? 150 days and we applaud, we pat ourselves on the back because we are no longer racist.
    We voted in a man who thinks no one controls him, who thinks he can do anything he wants and sidestep the Constitution, who sent his minions out to say the violence in Benghazi was due to a U-tube video and failed to send help. And by the way, what ever happened to that man who made that video?
    It is time to take our country back, this experiment has failed and all we have done is put our country into more debt, more people without jobs, increased the amount of money going to food stamps, decreased our military at a very dangerous time and put into effect a health care system that is absolutely useless.
    We had a chance to put a man in White House who had business sense and who was a nice man, but the 47% got its way and Obama won. The founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
    It is now time for us to move on and hopefully bring the country back and away from this dangerous man and his supporters.

  • Anonymous

    Everything they do should be suspect. Even bo’s new interest in the NSA…stating he will see that not everyone’s conversations will be recorded. Who can believe anything they say? It’s amazing that sooooo many of them lie over and over.
    Where is their conscience? Moral deprivation at it’s best!

  • Anonymous

    Here’s a Town Hall held for Cover Oregon, the people running it decline to show up, but there were two far leaning left people and two people who leaned to the right. My opinion, or point of view. What I liked was one representative said Cover Oregon wasn’t needed, people could go through the Federal Exchange. Someone in the audience pointed out it only cost $9 a month to run Cover Oregon like that should make people happy. One lady who got insurance for mental illness said she was grateful for CoverOregon, because it will pay for mental illness issues. One representative told her Cover Oregon isn’t needed, that everything she got was due to the Federal Exchange, it comes from there.
    People have told KATU that illegal aliens are signed up and KATU found paperwork in the dumpster with someones social security number written on one of the papers. The far left Greenlick said he didn’t believe there were illegal aliens signed up. The only people for this are those who want others to pay for them or who are making money off others through selling insurance, or are exempt like Pelosi. Here is a link if you want to see a Town Hall meeting and get an idea of how representatives view Obamacare. http://www.katu.com/politics/Watch-Your-Voice-Your-Future-Town-Hall-Cover-Oregon-251356111.html
    P,S, The one females reponse to the represenative to just go through the Federal instead of having Cover Oregon, said it’s not fair to all time for Cover Oregon to get it fixed. I say, how is it fair that people lost insurance they had through Insurance Companies who already knew how to run a business, how’s it fair to force people to pay for something they don’t want and they have taken away the competition so they can’t choose.

  • Guardian

    The increases in medical care costs for the great part have been the result of higher numbers of lawsuits on the pharmaceutical industry, on doctors (resulting in skyrocketing insurance premiums), lawsuits on medical device companies, new or improved medical diagnostic and treatment equipment and it’s extensive use by doctors and hospitals to provide superior patient care as well as to help them prevent lawsuits resulting from faulty diagnosis and treatment. Obamacare does nothing to address these issues that are the cost drivers.

  • Deckard426

    Valerie, how about a courtesy-flush of your head, so nobody has to smell your stinking breath?

  • Anonymous

    Are you suggesting the government prevent or limit a patients right to sue for malpractice? Now that would be an infringement of our rights. The Courts are where malpractice cases should establish precedence, not the Executive or Legislative branches.

  • Guardian

    I didn’t suggest anything of the sort.

  • Anonymous

    But didn’t you just say that Obamacare does nothing to prevent lawsuits against the medical industry? And in that statement, aren’t you suggesting that Obamacare should prevent lawsuits?

  • Guardian

    No – reread what I wrote – the last sentence was “Obamacare does nothing to address these issues that are the cost drivers.”

    Now – think outside the box a bit before you get back to me.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    how do you kill eleven million people?

  • Anonymous

    Cost reduction is a major priority of the ACA. One of the provisions is ongoing comparative-effectiveness research designed to disseminate identified efficient diagnosis and treatment practices. The Act aims to reward effective outcomes as opposed to paying for excessive tests. There are many more cost-cutting measures in the ACA. For example, getting healthcare access to previously uninsured has been shown to reduce the cost of treatment by half ( see http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/2/350.abstract )

  • Brian

    Is there anyone out there that actually thought that they were going to stick with Mar 31deadline? A democrat speaks, a democrat lies!

  • Anonymous

    They’ve lied so many times that they’ve convinced themselves it’s the truth.

  • Anonymous

    Well the fact that they keep blatantly lying to us says a lot about how stupid they think their constituents are.

  • Bill Taylor

    LEARN how to read with comprehension please……..she said the increases in INSURANCE premiums are the lowest in many years……the politifact thing is about TOTAL spent on healthcare….NOT the increase in insurance premiums……

    clue for why the total spending is less = FEWER people now have access, fewer people are getting services…..

    any thinking person would KNOW it is NOT possible to add over 30 million new folks getting care and NOT spend MORE in total.

    bottom line = FEWER people are getting care and those that do are paying MORE.

  • Doctor Li

    And the fact that we, as a country, continue to elect the liars is evidence that they are right. Collectively, we have become a stupid people.

  • Anonymous

    Bill, I think it’s you that needs to read with comprehension. My comment states exactly that Jerrett’s statement is incorrect and that it’s medical cost inflation at a 50-year low. People have been increasingly priced out of insurance and denied coverage for many years before the ACA. Where do you get your statistics that fewer people have access to healthcare because of the ACA? I’ve seen articles like this one http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html that state otherwise. It’s reasonable that more people will be covered because people that were denied coverage before the law can now get covered. It’s very early to make conclusions about the effect of the law on changes in people covered or premium trends. Major parts of the law just starting to go into effect, so there couldn’t be meaningful statistics already.

  • texastruthtweet

    I tried to sign up for Blue Cross in my state. My premiums will increase 1,000% over Cobra coverage. I also have to have maternity benefits for me and my husband! NEITHER ONE OF US NEED THEM! ACA is a ridiculous law!!!

  • Bill Taylor

    reread your comment and had NOT misread it earlier…….i was pointing out to YOU that YOUR comment about the total spending had NOTHING to do with her comment………my stats came from common SENSE, LESS total spending can ONLY mean LESS people got treatment……..MORE or the same number of folks getting treated means the total spending goes UP and certainly doesnt drop to PRE great society days.

  • Bambie Tibon

    It seems that there is no escape route for ObamaCare. It is something that would affect majority of the people. But before making any drastic moves especially, for companies, you should watch this video from freedomcarebenefits.com on how to beat ObamaCare.

  • Bill Taylor

    the cost reduction plan is what Palin said a “death panel” the law clearly states there is a “cost effectiveness” tasked with determining which treatment and for what age group is “cost effective” = DEATH for the old folks because NO treatment at all is “cost effective” for the government, in fact DENYING a senior care saves money twice, first not spending for their care and second when they soon die their SS checks end……and the MOST important thing is those seniors PAID for their care long ago!

    YOU are supporting the worst possible healthcare in obamadontcare.

  • Anonymous

    What’s being referred to is ‘tort reform’. No one is suggesting that lawsuits against the medical industry (and just what is ‘the medical industry’? Are you referring to device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, physicians, clinicians, nurses (in all categories), hospitals, clinics, etc.? I think you’re trying to say ‘anything and connected to providing patient care’.) This type of lawsuit is divided into two portions – the actual cost of the damages and the cost to care for the victim throughout the victim’s entire life; the second portion is the ‘pain and suffering’ portion. This is where reform is being sought – the jury awards in many of these cases have been astronomical – beginning with the woman who dumped hot coffee in her lap at a MacDonald’s drive-in window and was awarded $4 million for ‘pain and suffering’. Since lawyers typically collect between 25% and 40% of these awards, and since they constitute one of the largest donors to the Democrats, every effort has been made to stop any advancement of tort reform.

    And now you know…the rest of the story (with kudos to Paul Harvey).

  • Anonymous

    They’re lying more than likely will not end because that is all they know and they must do that to further their agenda and complete their mission of changing and destroying America. Unfortunately we have a large population of dumbed down, low information Americans who aren’t even aware they’re being lied to. I have no compassion for people who voted for Obama. May their lives be turned upside down and may they really get slammed in the wallet. If they have children they have destroyed their future unless their preference is that they don’t work and want them to take government handouts. Obama and Valerie Jarrett prefer Americans to be dumbed down and dependent on the government so they can install their socialistic propaganda in their weak minds. It is a very sad time in America.

  • Guardian

    They have been ineffective for the most part. The costs associated with their form of oversight and research cannot be shown to be justifiable or even produce a savings over the long run. What it does accomplish though is to interfere with doctor-patient care making assumptions that one size fits all, when in fact most patients are quite different in the way their bodies handle diseases/conditions and thus there will be a difference in what the most efficacious treatments are for them. They are trying to drive conformity which short changes a lot of people. These people determining comparative-effectiveness are not medical scientists or doctors, they are bureaucrats.

  • Anonymous

    TOKYO JARRETT, ONE OF OBITLA’S STAUNCH BROWNBLOUSE, AND BOSS!!!

  • Anonymous

    I think tort reform is a very bad precedent to set legislatively, not to mention the fact that the CBO estimates almost negligible impact on costs. Legal precedent is the right evolution for deciding future malpractice cases. Malpractice suits are extremely difficult to win, take years to settle, and most often are dismissed or settled for far less than is being sought. The deck is stacked against the patient because high paid insurance lawyers can easily wear down the plaintiff. The McDonald’s example is the exception, and is in no way typical. Tort reform would restrict the public’s First Amendment rights and do little to improve cost.

  • Anonymous

    I’d agree that comparative-effectiveness research hasn’t resulted in great improvements thusfar, but for a different reason. The current system favors treatments that are well paid, not necessarily those that are most effective. The current system is driven by business special interests. For example, a study disseminated by comparative-effectiveness research found a cheap generic was a more effective blood pressure medication than the expensive brand, but drug companies launched an aggressive marketing campaign that included paying health care experts to speak about the study in a way that made their expensive drugs seem better. The reward system is beginning to change from excessive procedures to outcomes. Experts are optimistic about comparative effectiveness research because it’s only now becoming a priority for the country and has governance that never existed before. Making a judgement on the results of the ACA are impossible because it’s only just beginning and there’s little data to analyze.

  • Guardian

    “The current system favors treatments that are well paid, not necessarily those that are most effective.” How so? I disagree. The insurance companies keep a pretty good reign on this sort of thing. Many will pay for the generic, while only partially paying for the original, resulting in patients accepting the generic. The incidents of doctors doing this is greatly exaggerated.

    So, you think a panel of bureaucrats are in a better position to determine the most efficacious treatment of patients than their doctors/specialists? Doctors do indicate that generic meds are OK, and pharmacists ask if they can substitute unless there is something in the formulation of the meds that is contraindicated for a particular patient. Also, If the specialists determine that a specific cancer treatment will be better for you than the accepted norm and will extend your life 10 years more than the other, but the panel of bureaucrats says no, you can’t have that, we will only pay for the other that won’t help you, just because it helps other people, this is acceptable to you? This is what it is about.The battles patients went through with insurance companies they will have to go through with this panel of bureaucrats.

    A panel of bureaucrats does not have the education, intelligence or training to be able to determine what is appropriate for a patient, any more than they are able to perform comparative effectiveness analysis of treatments.

    Thus I say they have been ineffective for the most part. The costs associated with their form of oversight and research cannot be shown to be justifiable or even produce a savings over the long run, and they are ignoring the cost drivers that are a result of lawsuits and fear of lawsuits. You haven’t addressed that yet. Hint – don’t look at the patients right to sue for malpractice. Look at the attorney’s end of it. This is something congress avoids because they are full of attorneys and receive lots of campaign donations from attorneys. ;-)

  • Guardian

    The third component to the law suit, attorney compensation, is what I was referring to but landree couldn’t figure that out. Too many attorney’s grossly enrich themselves on these suits which can’t be justified by the time they spend on them. They will manage to pump up a claim to 10 million to get 4 million out of it for themselves. If Obamacare is going to restrict patients, they need to restrict lawyers. Maybe something like the lesser of 10% of the award or $100,000. These numbers aren’t meant to be the final answer, just a suggestion as to how to work a solution.

    Not only are a lot of campaign donors lawyers, the congress has a lot of them in their membership.

  • Guardian

    The McDonalds case is not medical malpractice. If you have the wrong leg removed by Dr. Ooops, it is rather straight forward. This isn’t like non-medical liability lawsuits where you have to prove damage and who is at fault.

    Funny, the CBO estimates a negligible difference, like they estimated that Obamacare would make a negligible difference on the debt/deficit, but it in fact is now expected to be triple the negative impact. Don’t be so quick to grab CBO numbers to support your views as they are often wrong or don’t consider what the changes might be.

    Tort reform, if done right, would indeed improve costs.

    You still are looking at tort reform from the wrong angle.

  • Peeta Mellark

    Even if some people attack liberty in the name of illusions such as “man-made global warming” and “fairness”, liberty remains desirable.

  • Anonymous

    It would be obviously improper to have uneducated bureaucrats making judgments on effective medical treatments. Effectiveness research goes through a rigorous public peer review process by all stakeholders including medical doctors. The treatments are publicized and disseminated for the medical community to learn from, not to force certain treatments. I think it’s hard to argue that disseminating such information is detrimental. On the contrary, publicizing effective treatments makes the medical community smarter and more efficient when doctors learn from each other’s experiences.

  • Anonymous

    The McDonald’s example wasn’t mine. It was Wabansia’s. Malpractice suits are not all clear cut. Plaintiffs usually loose because deep-pocketed insurance companies hire experts that testify for the doctor. Limiting the right of patients to sue for malpractice is a violation of the First Amendment. The courts are the proper place to establish precedence on punitive damages.

  • Guardian

    “Effectiveness research goes through a rigorous public peer review process by all stakeholders including medical doctors.” ….. BS
    ..public peer review process? bureaucrats are bureaucrats, not scientists.
    .. by all stakeholders including medical doctors? not true.

    Enough time wasted here. You are chasing your position right down the drain.

  • Guardian

    I addressed your point about the McDonald’s suit and was clarifying the difference between it and medical malpractice. suits.

    Your claim “Plaintiffs usually loose…” is simply not true. Frivolous suits they lose, and rightly so, but not legitimate ones. (I am talking about medical malpractice here)

    “Limiting the right of patients to sue for malpractice is a violation of the First Amendment.” … No one is suggesting that patients’ right to sue for medical malpractice be limited, so stop harping on it.

  • Guardian

    It is mind boggling that he can’t understand that when more people lost their insurance than signed up for Obamacare, that less are insured.

  • Anonymous

    Where are you getting your information? There’s plenty publicized on this effort.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing can be shown in the long run. There is no long run. The program is relatively new. It’s just an intelligent way of distributing doctor’s experiences. Assuming it’s about conformity comes from personal projection of your feelings about being controlled. Read the program through, look at who the stakeholders are, look at the types of information publicized before you invent what will happen in the future.

  • Anonymous

    Utter nonsense. Insurance companies are death panels. My father was denied the only cancer treatment available because they called it “experimental”. Disseminating information about doctor’s experience is intelligent.

  • Anonymous

    Having lived through one of these suits with a family member, I know just how long, risky and difficult it is to get justice in a malpractice suit. I know lawyers that do this, and trust me, the deck is stacked against the patient.

  • Guardian

    Oh, really? provide it then.

  • Guardian

    What you are saying is your uneducated opinion.

  • Guardian

    You are not being truthful.

  • Anonymous

    You prove you’re not truthful with your statement because we both know there’s no way you could know if my statement is truthful.

  • Anonymous

    Here are some of the principal effectiveness investigators – all MDs and Phds from major adademic medical institutions:

    http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/about-the-decide-network/

    Here’s are the organizations involved in effectiveness research and dissemination of the information:

    http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/

    Here’s examples of reports available for consumers and professionals to learn from:

    http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?category=&search=&methodCategory=&language=1&searchButton=Search

    Now where’s your proof that this program employs only unprofessional bureaucrats?

  • Anonymous

    It is not opinion. Even though the The Effective Health Care Program was created in 2003, it only seriously got serious funding in 2009, which is when comparative effectiveness began. That’s a relatively short amount of time on which to draw “long run” conclusion. That is fact, not opinion. I’d be very interested in a credible study proving the failure of the Program. Do you have any credible study supporting your view that publicizing effective treatments is detrimental to the public?

  • Guardian

    I am not inventing anything. Read the legislation.

  • Guardian

    I’ve seen enough of your lies and misinformation before. I don’t trust a thing you post.

  • Guardian

    it isn’t 2009 anymore, it is 5 years later. They are wasting our money while not producing anything of value.

  • Guardian

    What you are referring to is a collection of research centers that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) created in 2005. It is 9 years later.
    They are not the people who will make the decisions as to what treatments will be approved and which not. Also the American Medical Association opposes the IPAB and supports its repeal.
    Press release: AMA Tells Congress: IPAB Would Hurt Patients’ Access to Care and Should be Repealed, February 27, 2012
    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-02-27-ipab-should-be-repealed.page

  • Guardian

    Publicizing effective treatments is not detrimental to the public. Deciding what treatments will be covered is. This bunch you are referring to was not part of Obamacare – they were in existence before Obamacare. The Effective Health Care Program Stakeholder Group is a part of the Citizen’s Forum initiative, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Stakeholder group that was on the board in 2010 was half non doctors. They were lawyers and business people.

  • Guardian

    Those are not part of the group appointed by Obamacare. They are researchers involved in health care projects and research before Obamacare existed. They were funded by ARRA. They are independent of Obamacare, and always were.

  • Guardian

    The Stakeholder group that was on the board in 2010 was only half medical doctors, The rest were lawyers and business people. Some of the doctors work for insurance companies. LOL.
    http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/about-the-stakeholder-group/

    I was talking about Obamacare appointees, not a loose bunch of research groups that existsed before Obamacare.

  • Anonymous

    More evidence of your projection of fear of being controlled. Let me guess, you don’t trust anything about government, academia, environmentalists, etc. You’re not alone, but it’s not healthy either. Lack of objectivity is a common psychosis of the far right.

  • Anonymous

    What does the IPAB have to do with publicizing effectiveness research by doctors? Even though your article is unrelated, I have to laugh when the far right complains that the government’s not cutting enough from entitlements like the Medicare (the biggest one), and then complains again when it gets cut. Crazy.

  • Anonymous

    I looked at the publicized research ( http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?category=&search=&methodCategory=&language=1&searchButton=Search ). If I were a doctor, I’d read anything that was related to my specialty.

  • Anonymous

    Apparently you have no clue about how long it takes to identify topics, conduct research, perform statistics on results and publish conclusions.

  • Anonymous

    You apparently don’t understand what stakeholders means. Doctors are not the only stakeholders in healthcare. Insurance companies and the BUSINESS of the medical industry are as much stakeholders as doctors. They are the capitalists. You should be encouraged that the group is represented by more than one interest group.

  • Anonymous

    First, insurance companies have been deciding what gets paid for many decades. Medicare has set parameters for payments for many decades. It’s not reasonable to have any system that has no limits on payments. Second, the publication of effectiveness research has nothing to do with the payments. The program was started in 2003 for public education, but not seriously funded until the ACA in 2009, when comparative effectiveness research was added.

  • Anonymous

    ACA funding for effectiveness research was $300 million, some of which are spent on medical academics to do the research.

  • Guardian

    You made a whole lot of invalid assumptions. Nothing new for you.

  • Guardian

    You are really out there.AHRQ does not determine what gets covered. It has nothing to do with Obamacare coverage. you got way opf track trying to introduce it into the thread.

  • Guardian

    Good for you. That wasn’t the point. You are getting really tiresome.

  • Guardian

    But I do. I used to be involved in research.

  • Guardian

    So, you want insurance companies and business people to have a say in your medical treatment. LMAO!

  • Guardian

    They were organized in 2003 before Obamacare and had nothing to do with it. Their projects have always been part of the medical community, and followed by many practitioners.

  • Guardian

    So what. They were funded by ARRA.

  • Anonymous

    Huh? Your response doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my post. I was responding to the article you referenced.

  • Anonymous

    Since you have experience in some sort of research, is it reasonable to gather stakeholders, determine and identify research on hundreds of topics, conduct the research, statistically analyze the results, disseminate all the reports to the public, then gather statistics on how the entire effort is effecting the cost and quality of healthcare within five years? Think about it.

  • Anonymous

    Insurance and business people are involved with healthcare decisions every day. Again, you don’t seem to understand the word “stakeholders”.

  • Anonymous

    Again, no seriously funded until 2009. So, what’s you’re point. Aren’t you the one who started arguing that the program is run by a bunch of bureaucrats who don’t know anything about healthcare? Now you’re saying the program is part of the medical community and followed by many practitioners? Make up your mind. Sounds like you’re admitting that you were wrong about your accusation that only bureaucrats are dictating what treatments we would get under this program. Geez.

  • Guardian

    Yours had nothing to do with mine.

  • Guardian

    Certainly not – never did. But I have a problem with Obama administration appointed bureaucrats using the info to determine what will be covered. Get it?

  • Guardian

    I certainly do understand it. Again, they aren’t involved in determining everyone’s healthcare, and when they are, they are the patients choice as he chooses who will be his insurer or decides to do it alone, and he chooses his doctor. That is not the case with Ocare.

  • Guardian

    The Obama appointed bureaucrats who decide what will be covered under the PPACA are not the same people as EHCP collection of researchers/projects. Why can’t you understand this?

  • Anonymous

    Patients can still choose their insurance company. The only difference is that insurance is mandated. A person can still choose a low cost high deductible plan that allows them to sock away thousands of dollars tax free in an HSA, but they can’t freeload. The ACA puts an end to freeloaders that use the emergency room as their doctor and lets the rest of us pay in the most expensive way.
    But I don’t understand what bearing that has on disseminating effectiveness research and giving all stakeholders access for public review. Anyone can suggest or comment on the research. What is your argument about this? We already straightened you out on your wrong statement that only unqualified bureaucrats are involved in Comparative Effectiveness Research.

  • Anonymous

    Any organization more than a few people have employees that do administration. So what. What makes you think the people deciding the fairness or appropriateness of payments are unqualified? Do you even know who makes those decisions and what their qualifications are? Again, just like your assumptions about those involved in effectiveness research, which we proved you were wrong about, you’re applying your same misinformed idea to the part of the administration that determines appropriate payments. Medicare has been setting those parameters for many years. Do you suppose any doctors are involved in determining what fair pay is? How about insurance company actuaries? I’ll bet if you investigated the process and the people involved in it, you’d find they have a lot of appropriate experience.

  • Guardian

    “But I don’t understand what bearing that has on disseminating effectiveness research and giving all stakeholders access for public review. Anyone can suggest or comment on the research. What is your argument about this?”

    Landree, please try to pay attention. I have explained this more than once already.

    The Obama appointed bureaucrats who decide what will be covered are not the same people as the researchers you were referring to. How many time do I have to say this? Stop wasting my time.

    Patients are not free to chose the company they want – they are forced to chose what is made available to them under Obamacare. They will not save the money they would otherwise have been able to for their retirement.A high cost deductible will have them paying for their own medical care anyway.

  • Guardian

    You haven’t proven me wrong about anything. You have insisted on your opinion, as misguided as it is. Obama bureaucrats are not the same people as the researchers of EHCP. Stop wasting my time.

  • Anonymous

    First, you’re changing your tune. Your first comment was that bureaucrats are determining what treatments will be used. That is what I debunked.

    Now I’ll debunk your statement that consumers can’t choose their insurance company. Consumers can certainly choose from many insurance companies. I can choose from lots of insurance companies in my state’s market. There are many companies doing business in my state. I chose a high deductible plan because it is the best possible deal. So far I’ve put almost $8000 tax free in an HSA, more than enough to cover the deductible if I get into any serious medical problems.

  • Guardian

    You debunked nothing. You still think a group of researchers are determining what is covered under Obamacare.

    Aren’t you lucky that you can chose from many companies and plans that you want. Not everyone can.

    CNSN News – Major health insurance companies–Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana–have decided not to participate in various states in the Obamacare health-insurance exchanges that will be the only place Americans will be able to buy a health insurance plan using the federal subsidies authorized under the Obamacare law.
    (That is just as of last August)

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/blue-cross-aetna-united-humana-flee-obamacare-exchanges#sthash.5aoA9igC.dpuf

    As of last fall, W. Virginia only had one Health insurer.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    You point out a problem indeed. I wonder why these particular states are problematic. I know each state regulates insurance companies independently. Sounds like state regulation issue. Do you know why certain states are having a problem keeping insurance companies and the rest aren’t?

  • Guardian

    That has no bearing on my comment.

  • Guardian

    Yes, and it isn’t state regulations. With that, I am finished with this thread – it is threadbare.

  • Jeffrey J Worden

    OOH OOH! I know-If I had been paying for the aspects of coverage required no that I neither want or need the current increase would be??? less that it has been in the past 50 years ah darn still BS