Report: $262M spent on ads for and against Obama's health care law

Volunteers hang a long banner before a Lone Star Tea Party rally, April 15, 2011 in Grand Prairie, Texas.

/ iStockphoto

(CBS News) President Obama's health care law has been the subject of $262 million dollars worth of advertising since the bill passed two years ago, according to a new report.

An analysis by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) found that advertisements critical of the health care law have outnumbered supportive ads by a ratio of 3:1.

The analysis comes as the health care law continues to be an issue in the presidential election -- the Republican candidates have pledged to repeal the law.  In addition, the two year anniversary of the passage of the bill is Friday and the Supreme Court is set to hear six hours of oral arguments over three days next week.

CMAG found that political ads were used in the lead up to the 2010 midterm elections and started to pick up again in the past six months ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

The analysis finds that Republican presidential candidates and third-party political groups supporting Republican candidates have been the largest spenders in anti-health-care law ads since July, 2011.

In particular, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's campaign spent nearly $1.4 million in broadcast media against the health care bill; The Red White and Blue Fund, the super PAC supporting Rick Santorum, spent $1.7 million; And Karl Rove's pro-Republican super PAC, Crossroads GPS, invested $2.8 million for critical ads.

The ads opposed to the law are targeted in swing state markets including Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Ohio.

Supporters of the health care bill doled out far fewer dollars to defend the bill. They spent just $57.9 million compared to opponents $204 million since March, 2010.

Furthermore, most of the advocacy measures have not been political in nature but have come from the Department of Health and Human Services in the form of political service announcements to inform low-income citizens of what the law offers.

[Molly-Pchr]

I wonder how many cancer treatments that could have paid for.

[occupy_cbs]

Many states have only required the health insurance industry to spend a minimum of 50% of their income through premiums on MLR, but the new PPACA requires them to spend between 80-85% on minimum MLR.

Here's the scoop from Arkansas that used to only require a 50% MLR:


Medical loss ratios

PPACA requires health insurers to report the percentage of premium revenue they spend on medical services and quality improvement. The percentage is known as the medical loss ratio (MLR). Insurance companies that spend less than 85% of the large group policies' premium revenue on medical care (80% for individual and small group policies) will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012. Arkansas's current minimum MLR for individual health insurance policies is 50%.

The law allows the HHS Secretary to adjust the MLR standard for a state if the state can show that meeting the standard may destabilize the individual market and result in fewer choices for consumers. As of April 4, 2011, nine states had applied for a waiver from the 80% standard and one state (Maine) had received it. Arkansas has not applied for a waiver.

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/healthcare/timeline/pages/HealthReformProvisions.aspx?name=Medical%20loss%20ratios

[occupy_cbs]

The PPACA requires those insurance companies that cannot prove they are spending a bare minimum of 80% on health care (MLR), they must by law return that money to their customers!

[occupy_cbs]

mrschweik: "You do know we would love to pay more for the actual healthcare, but all we we are getting to pay for is not healthcare but more overhead an hurdles to just get to the healthcare we want."



CMS ISSUES MEDICAL LOSS RATIO REGULATIONS

Background. Among the most hotly debated provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) have been the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements, which were intended to lower healthcare costs by requiring health insurance companies to spend less on marketing and overhead expenses and more on care. For an insurer, MLR represents the percentage of premiums spent on reimbursement for clinical services provided to subscribers -- i.e., amounts that the insurer must use to pay for healthcare.

Effective January 1, 2011, insurers whose MLR does not meet the minimum PPACA standards must rebate the difference to their enrollees beginning with the 2012 plan year. PPACA requires large group plans to spend at least 85% of the premium dollar on care and quality improvement activities, and individual and small group plans to meet an 80% standard. Many insurers have lowered commissions for agents and brokers as part of their effort to reduce overall administrative costs in order to meet the MLR requirements.

http://healthcare.edwardswildman.com/healthcarenews/news_detail.aspx?news=2701

[occupy_cbs]

Right-Wing Media Falsely Claim Cost Of Health Care Law Has Doubled
March 16, 2012

http://mediamatters.org/research/201203160005


=====
mrschweik: "speaking of lies and deception mediamatters"?
=====
RetRanger: "MediaMatters HAR! Busted occupy"
=====




Are ad hominem attacks the 'best' you can do?

The PROOF is right on the page, with video segments and transcripts of all the right-wing LIES and DECEPTIONS, yet you can only attack the messenger giving us all the TRUTH! YOU take the cake of ignorance!


Fox's Doocy: Health Care Law "Is Going To Wind Up Costing Us Double, At Least." On the March 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. both claimed that the CBO report showed that the ACA "is going to wind up costing us double, at least." From Fox & Friends...

Fox Nation: "Obamacare Twice As Expensive At $900 BILLION Price Tag?" A March 15 Fox Nation post highlighted a FoxNews.com article about the CBO report under the headline, "Obamacare Twice as Expensive at $900 BILLION Price Tag?" From Fox Nation...

Washington Examiner: Heath Care Law Cost Is "More Than Double What Obama Advertised." In a March 13 post on The Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog, senior editorial writer Philip Klein wrote...

Gateway Pundit: "Obamacare Will Cost Twice As Much As Promised." In a March 14 Gateway Pundit post, conservative blogger Jim Hoft wrote...

-----

In Fact, CBO Projected ACA's Coverage Provisions Will Actually Cost Less Than Previously Estimated

CBO: Insurance Coverage Provisions Will Be "About $50 Billion Less Than" Previous Estimate. In the March 13 companion blog to CBO's 2012 estimate of PPACA's insurance coverage provisions, CBO reported:

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period.

[Vegas7997]

You can get insurance for $3,000/year. It depends on the amount of risk you will take. Large deductible = lower premiums.

Insurance is suppose to mitigate risk. With ObamaCare, we have to pay for planned expenses. Thus, those that want to keep their costs down, can't. Preventative care coverage is expensive and leads to more and more tests (increasing costs even more).

And, whatever happened to Tort reform? Notice all the attorneys advertising on tv? Must pay pretty well.

[occupy_cbs]

There are quite a few "republican ideas" in the PPACA that will lead to cost savings (the GOP just never read the law), including section 6801:

"End junk lawsuits." It's not entirely clear what this means, as most malpractice lawsuits actually aren't junk lawsuits. The evidence on this is pretty clear: The malpractice problem is on operating tables, not in court rooms. Which isn't to deny that our current system is broken for patients and doctors alike. The Affordable Care Act proposes to deal with this in Section 6801, which encourages states to develop new malpractice systems and suggests that Congress fund the most promising experiments. This compromise makes a lot of sense given the GOP's already-expressed preference for letting states "create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs."

"Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs." Section 1302 of the PPACA does this directly. The provision is entitled "the Waiver for State Innovation," and it gives states the power to junk the whole of the health-care plan -- that means the individual mandate, the Medicaid expansion, all of it -- if they can do it better and cheaper.

[occupy_cbs]

"Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do." This is the very purpose of the exchanges, as defined in Section 1312. Insurers are required to pool the risk of all the small businesses and individuals in the new markets rather than treating them as small, single units. That gives the newly pooled consumers bargaining power akin to that of a massive corporation or labor union, just as conservatives want. It also gives insurers reason to compete aggressively for their business, which is key to the conservative vision. Finally, empowering the exchanges to use prudential purchasing maximizes the power and leverage that consumers will now enjoy.


"Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." To the surprise and dismay of many liberals, the PPACA includes a compromise with the conservative vision for insurance regulation. The relevant policy is in Section 1333, which allows the formation of interstate compacts. Under this provision, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho (for instance) could agree to allow insurers based in any of those states to sell plans in all of them. This prevents a race to the bottom, as Idaho has to be comfortable with Arizona's regulations, and the policies have to have a minimum level of benefits (something that even Rep. Paul Ryan believes), but it's a lot closer to the conservative ideal.

[occupy_cbs]

mrschweik: "You do know we would love to pay more for the actual healthcare, but all we we are getting to pay for is not healthcare but more overhead an hurdles to just get to the healthcare we want."



Are you aware that the PPACA requires the for-profit insurance companies to spend between 80-85% of their premiums from customers on providing actual health care, or they must return the overpayments to their customers?

[occupy_cbs]

Typical ringer attack adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, and proves you cannot debate anything -- just make ad hominem and personal attacks!

[ssporleder]

Money that could have gone twowards the defecit or helping Americans in need after floods and tornados.

Hideous.

[starving1968-3]

That's $262 million dollars that COULD have been spent on actual health care treatments and medicines, but was instead flushed down the toilet.

What a waste.

[anneable]

HEY, YOU DUMB AMERICANS - SPEND THIS MONEY ON HEALTHCARE!!!

You fatheads will never get it - will you???

[qyeteye]

Public pays for goods and services. Goods producers and servicers collects the money. Nothing wrong there.

Many pool a portion to associations that protect and maintian gravy train to point of sacrificing the common good. Something wrong there.