A Koch Story And Politifact On ACA Cost While Getting Less?

We have a two-pronged piece with fissures into the Koch brothers. 

If you think Democrats are wrong for highlighting the dangers of the Koch brothers, you should apply major remedial interventions to your thinking. 

The brothers have a solid grip on conservative America and American Libertarians. Oh sure, many libertarians will deny the influence of the Koch’s and proclaim their ultra liberal views towards governance. Well, I suggest any one who would “go-there” is either a closet conservative or a conservative who simply refuses to accept the label. They are not ultra-liberal as they…

• align with party that doesn’t give a damn about human services programs, 
• don’t give a damn about cutting military spending 
• tolerate a GOP serving as a moat for Corporate plutocrats
• they are people who make noise like a  severely hearing impaired orchestra performing at the direction of an orchestra conductor with 50/50 vision. 

The Kochs are anti-progressive in every sense. Through vast shadowy and secretive networks, they appear to (in various ways) fund just about every anti-progressive agenda, cause and initiative. Data maps provide clear illustration of how the networks inter-relate; we have archived many data maps like the one you are about to see and some are very extensive. We offer and anti-choice Data-map.

More secretive and in some cases non-taxed entities that work to instill towards election of candidates who will hand the Kochs status as marionette “kings.” 

• Freedom Partners
• Foundations as core entities
• Kochtopus
• Charitable Foundations and Far-Right Political organizations (eg. Heritage Foundation). Let there be no mistaking, the Kochs contribute to the Arts.
• Cross Pollenization (A mish-mesh of the previous maps)

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have organizations that appear as data-map spider webs. Spider webs exist to ensnare.  

Will we fall for strategy as delineated in the following Politifact piece?

From the Koch foundation of plutocracy to a specific strategy based in False information. 

______________________

Read more after break below

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Millions of Americans are “paying more and getting less” under Obamacare.

Americans for Prosperity on Monday, March 17th, 2014 in a political ad

Americans for Prosperity claims people are getting less at a higher cost under Obamacare

Americans for Prosperity is airing versions of this ad in Colorado and Louisiana, where Democrats face tough Republican challenges.

Americans for Prosperity has been active on the airwaves already this election cycle. The group, which opposes Obamacare, has run a handful of ads featuring people telling health care “horror stories” meant to tug on the heartstrings. We’ve looked at a couple and explained how they can be misleading.  

But a pair of new ads take an entirely different tack to undercut support from Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Udall of Colorado.

In these ads, a woman on screen trashes political ads in her 30-second personal pitch.

“People don’t like political ads. I don’t like them either. But health care isn’t about politics,” she says. “It’s about people. And millions of people have lost their health insurance, millions of people can’t see their own doctors, and millions are paying more and getting less.”

We’ve tackled claims about lost insurance and access to personal doctors before. But we haven’t heard someone say that the health care law is causing people to pay more for less, so we decided to check it out.

Paying more

There are a lot of factors in the health care law — and health insurance in general — that make it difficult to pin down whether people are paying more or less for coverage.

In general, insurance premiums were increasing every year well before Obamacare became law. In fact, rates have increased consistently during the last 15 years. But there are signs that the rate of the increase has declined since the law was passed.

Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, surveyed people who purchase insurance through their employer. Here are the average annual cost of premiums:

Year	Single	% increase	Family	% increase
1999	$2,196		$5,791
2000	$2,471	12.52%	$6,438	11.17%
2001	$2,689	8.82%	$7,061	9.68%
2002	$3,083	14.65%	$8,003	13.34%
2003	$3,383	9.73%	$9,068	13.31%
2004	$3,695	9.22%	$9,950	9.73%
2005	$4,024	8.90%	$10,880	9.35%
2006	$4,242	5.42%	$11,480	5.51%
2007	$4,479	5.59%	$12,106	5.45%
2008	$4,704	5.02%	$12,680	4.74%
2009	$4,824	2.55%	$13,375	5.48%
2010	$5,049	4.66%	$13,770	2.95%
2011	$5,429	7.53%	$15,073	9.46%
2012	$5,615	3.43%	$15,745	4.46%
2013	$5,884	4.79%	$16,351	3.85%

Other than a sharp increase between 2010 to 2011, the Obama years have experienced the smallest rate increases of the last 14 years. Throughout much of the early 2000s, premium increases of 9 percent or more were the norm.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid also found a slowdown in the increase in health costs during the last four years, including a modest 4 percent increase from 2011 to 2012.

The government attributed the decrease in health costs to the economic downturn. Kaiser, too, said the recession accounted for much of the decline, though they said the health care law may have played a role, too.

Because of the law, people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level are now eligible for subsidies to buy insurance, and for many of them, costs are going down. Those costs are capped at a percent of their income.

But some people may see rate increases on existing policies or as they transition to new plans.

Insurers can no longer deny individuals with pre-existing conditions, and there is now a much larger pool of people looking to purchase coverage. For younger, healthier people, this means they are now taking on some of the financial burden so older or sick people can buy insurance at a reasonable price. (This is especially true for young males, since young women were often charged more, and even more so if they don’t qualify for premium subsidies.)

There were also people who previously purchased very cheap plans. But those policies provided very little coverage or capped their benefits at low levels, which the new health care law bars. So they’re getting more coverage, albeit at a greater cost.

Getting less?

Which gets us to our next point.

We found it strange that the ad claimed that people are getting less under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, we’ve usually heard the opposite from critics of the law that people are now paying for types of coverage they don’t need.

The favorite example is single men who now will now have maternity coverage if they buy a plan on the individual market. In October 2013, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., grilled Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on this very point.

“An insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not,” Sebelius said during her testimony on the Hill.“And that is why the health care premiums are increasing this high,” Ellmers said. “We’re forcing them to buy things that they will never need.”“Individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity coverage for their spouses and for their families,” Sebelius responded.“To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?” Elmers asked. The discussion ended there.

So are you getting less coverage, or getting more than you need? We asked Americans for Prosperity to clarify their position.

“Getting less speaks to a multitude of data points that has been America’s Obamacare experience so far: botched website, shrinking provider networks, a string of broken promises, missed deadlines, and unilateral rule changes that have kept the entire country in limbo ever since this debacle rolled out,” said spokesman Levi Russell.

That’s a pretty ambiguous definition of “less.” We think most people would assume “less” is referring to the amount of coverage or benefits under the law.

Americans are getting more benefits under the law in a number of ways — including, in some cases, being able to buy affordable insurance for the first time.

In addition, insurance purchased in the individual and small group marketplace must meet 10 essential health benefits. This includes coverage for emergency services and hospitalization, prescription drugs, free preventative coverage for things ranging from basic immunizations to HIV screening, and maternity care.

The law also caps out-of-pocket costs, providing greater protection from exorbitant hospital bills. The most a person could pay for health care in a year is $6,300; the most a family can pay is $12,600.

Before the law passed, some insurers capped annual or lifetime benefits, forcing people who thought they were covered to pay large hospital bills once they passed the threshold.

People with pre-existing conditions are also seeing a lot more benefits, since they previously couldn’t buy a policy at all.

So it’s a tough sell to say millions are getting less. And for many, they aren’t paying more, either.

Our ruling

Americans for Prosperity said “millions are paying more and getting less” under Obamacare. We found their explanation of “less” rather dubious. Most people on the individual market are getting more benefits under the law. At worst, they’re paying more to get more, though in many cases they’re actually paying less.

We rate this claim False.

Karl Rove "Roves-out" More False Drivel To Fox News Viewers

Bush did it better. Seriously, Karl Rove?

Karl Rove and Fox News continue to malign President Obama with George W. Bush (of all presidents) as the whipping rod. Despite growing concern for Bush Administration and CIA involvement violations of international law (torture), we continue to hear comment and advice from the un-credible and shadowy Right. We continue to hear from GOP operatives as they disparage President Obama, despite  Bush Administration economic policy and fiscal malfeasance that contributed to a worldwide economic collapse and unjustifiable wars. From Dick Cheney, through Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and the ever-present Karl Rove the barrage of inane drivel from the “dealers of doom, flows like an out of control freight train.

But, as the old adage goes….“That dog don’t bark.” 

Carnival barking from Rove isn’t possible without a dedicated platform from which to spew rhetoric. Fox News managers and viewers partake in a symbiotic purveyor/sycophant relationship on a daily basis.  From time to time Fox programmers will schedule major right-wing operatives to feed its viewers unadulterated garbage. There are no GOP operatives more adroit at manipulation, GOP political subterfuge and outright carnival barking political garbage than Karl Rove. Rove served eight years with George W. Bush. He “no way” a credible person. Rove should have been investigated as a co-conspirator to US torture and he should have been publicly condemned for his role in the 2007/08 Bush economic collapse towards. Yet, we have to deal with his bull crap annoyances via Fox News’s need to feed its viewers. What better feeding arena than Sunday Morning GOP news shows. 

Progressive social media should spread Rove’s lack of veracity and manipulation far and wide.

Rove sat for Fox News Sunday (this past weekend) and laid more B/S across the ears, eyes and brains of people who obviously seek weekly doses of Obama Derangement feed. The Fox News Sunday feeding was laced with Rovian “bull” pureed with large amounts of George W. Bush fallacy.

The Tampa Bay Times investigated Rove’s disparaging remarks about President Obama’s handling of international crisis in the context offered by Rove: George W Bush handled such crisis more effectively. 

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

After Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, the U.S. sent a “very strong message” to Vladimir Putin by sending “warships to the Black Sea” and airlifting “combat troops that Georgia had in Afghanistan” back to Georgia.

Karl Rove on Sunday, March 16th, 2014 in an interview on “Fox News Sunday”

Karl Rove says George W. Bush had a more muscular stance against Putin in 2008 Georgia crisis than Barack Obama has had over Crimea

A Russian military convoy moves past a horse-drawn cart with local residents outside Gori, Georgia, on Aug. 13, 2008. (Associated Press)

Russia and Georgia have had tense relations since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Some Republicans have been critical of President Barack Obama’s handling of Russia and President Vladimir Putin recently. The critics say that Obama has appeared weak in the face of Russia — first, when it sent troops into the Ukrainian region of Crimea, and then when it quickly acted to annex the territory.

For instance, on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said the Obama administration “is creating an air of permissiveness” toward Russian expansionism. “We do need to show long-term resolve.”

Another Fox News Sunday guest, Republican strategist Karl Rove, took the opportunity to contrast Obama’s actions with those of Rove’s old boss, President George W. Bush. Rove suggested that Bush’s policies were more muscular and effective in countering Putin’s Russia.

Read more aftefr the break below

Specifically, in 2008, while Bush was serving his final year in office, he faced a foreign-policy crisis that in some ways echoed what’s been happening more recently in Crimea. The conflict involved Russia; Georgia, a former Soviet Republic that was by then independent; and two separatist regions within Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After several years of restiveness by Russian-backed rebels in South Ossetia, the Georgian government made a military push that attempted to retake control of the region in August 2008. Russia responded militarily, successfully pushing back Georgian troops from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Clashes continued for a week, including in portions of Georgia beyond the two breakaway regions, until France helped broker a peace deal. Russia then recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign nations, though most other countries have not taken that step.

So how did Bush respond as hostilities were erupting in Georgia? Here’s Rove’s recollection:

“I think the 2008 experience is instructive. … What the United States did was it sent warships to the Black Sea, (and) it took the combat troops that Georgia had in Afghanistan and airlifted them back, sending a very strong message to Putin that you’re going to be facing combat-trained, combat-experienced Georgian forces. And not only that, but the United States government is willing to give logistical support to get them there. And this stopped (Russian troops) at … the two enclaves, and they did not make a move at Tbilisi. We need similar strong movement now.”

We’ll take a look at two of the moves Rove said Bush made — sending “warships to the Black Sea” and airlifting “the combat troops that Georgia had in Afghanistan” back to Georgia.

Sending warships to the Black Sea

The United States — and its military alliance, NATO — did indeed have ships in the Black Sea near Georgia in August 2008, but the story behind their presence is more nuanced than an unmistakable show of force against Russian aggression.

There was little question that the United States backed the Georgian position in the conflict. The United States had been a staunch supporter of Georgia and its military ever since Georgia became independent, and Bush, speaking from the Beijing Olympics, said, ”Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected. We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops. We call for the end of the Russian bombings.”

However, the military actions taken by the United States to back up these words were more cautious. For instance, the administration sent the guided missile destroyer McFaul to the Georgian port of Batumi, but it was loaded with humanitarian aid, according to a report in the Aug. 28, 2008, New York Times:

In essence, the United States was walking a tightrope between showing military defiance and offering a more humanitarian face. The Times called this balance “delicate.”

“At the time, these gestures were not viewed as particularly strong,” said Lincoln Mitchell, who was chief of party for the National Democratic Institute in Georgia from 2002 to 2004 and is now affiliated with the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Mitchell said, “complained throughout the war that he was not getting support.”

It’s also worth noting that a portion of the western military presence in the Black Sea was already in place before the conflict erupted. For instance, NATO said that four of its warships were in the Black Sea because of previously scheduled anti-terrorist and anti-piracy exercises.

Airlifting Georgian combat troops from Afghanistan

There was in fact an airlift of Georgian military personnel — but it wasn’t from Afghanistan. It was from another country where the United States and its allies were fighting a war: Iraq.

On Aug. 11, 2008, Agence France-Presse reported that the United States military had “nearly completed” the airlift of 2,000 Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia.

Here, too, the United States took pains to portray its actions as being limited rather than aggressive.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters that the United States was “fulfilling our agreement with the Georgian government that, in an emergency, we will assist them in redeploying their troops. We are honoring that commitment.”

Whitman told reporters at the time that the 130 U.S. troops and military contractors who were already in the country to train Georgian troops had been brought together at an undisclosed location away from the hostilities.

And Whitman made clear to reporters that — contrary to allegations by Putin — the U.S. was not flying the Iraq-based Georgian troops to the war zone.

It’s not clear that Russia was all that worried about the troops airlifted from Iraq, regardless of Putin’s rhetoric, Mitchell said. “The troops from Iraq were not exactly combat ready to fight against Russia, nor was Putin concerned about those troops,” he said.

David L. Phillips, director of Columbia University’s program on peace-building and rights, expressed skepticism about Rove’s suggestion that the United States’ response in 2008 was so strong that it essentially stopped Russian troops in their tracks.

“There was never any chance of the Bush administration going to war in Georgia, and everybody knew that,” he said. “It was for show. It would be misleading to suggest that our response was so robust that it deterred further aggression.”

Our ruling

Rove said that after Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, the U.S. sent a “very strong message” to Putin by sending “warships to the Black Sea” and airlifting “the combat troops that Georgia had in Afghanistan” back to Georgia.

In reality, the military message sent by the warship movements was deliberately fuzzed by having the vessels carry humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, the airlift of Georgian troops from Iraq — not Afghanistan, as Rove had said — was carefully calibrated not to deposit them where they could quickly face off against Russian forces.

Contemporary accounts and experts agree that Rove was spinning what was actually a modest and nuanced military response into something more forceful. The truth is that Bush was geopolitically hamstrung — just as Obama is now — by facing a nuclear-armed, expansion-minded Russia willing to intervene militarily in countries on its own doorstep, but far from our own. We rate Rove’s claim Mostly False.