Obamacare ad blitz debacle

I remember in the days leading up to the passage of Obamacare having discussions (rather heated discussions, actually) about the potential efficacy of the law.  I argued that it is a road to a single payer system.  I argued that there is no way the government could be more efficient at providing healthcare insurance than the private insurers.  One of their big arguments was that there wouldn't be a need for "all that overhead & profit" so a government solution would be simpler. 

I know, I know.  What can I say?  In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

So here we are.  It's been a few months since the roll out.  The worst of the website access issues have apparently been resolved (or maybe it's that people just don't care so much anymore).  Of course, there are still big "elephants in the room" regarding website issues, sitting there waiting to explode.  For instance, still not having a way to effectively communicate with the back room aspects of buying insurance (like actually processing payments) and of course the biggest issue that is on the horizon:  the fact that the website security is nearly non-existent and made even worst every time there is a patch or fix applied.  And since the website must be connected to other government agencies such as the IRS, HHS, etc. it could be used as a portal into those databases as well.  We shall see.  

But I digress.  One of these liberals largest arguments was about how the lack of  "overhead & profit" would make the system cheaper.  Namely, they pointed to the marketing costs.  Since it'll be mandated, everyone will be required to have it, so "wala" no marketing expense required, right?  Wrong.  

Even as early as last summer it was reported the budget for marketing Obamacare was going to be $684,000,000.   Some of this money was spent on amazing advertising like these, this, and this.  Ironically, since Obamacare has not yet nationalized the health insurers, they too are hopping on the band wagon.  These insurers are expected to kick in another $500,000,000 just in TV advertising alone.    

And now we have the 2014 Winter Olympics about to start and here comes another ad blitz with Magic Johnson and Alonzo Mourning.

So I have to ask, "Where is the efficiency of this new healthcare insurance scheme?"

D'oh!

Remember these famous words:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. - Nancy Pelosi 

Or How about these famous words:

But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. - Nancy Pelosi

Ironically, those quotes from the San Fran Nan were never talked about in this story:

With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies for New York Professionals

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS, NYT
December 13, 2013

Here's a few excerpts from the story (along with my running commentary):

Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it. [Oh, pshaw, the poor darlings.  What was it San Fran Nan said.  Oh yeah, "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."]

The people affected include not just writers, artists, doctors and the like, but also independent tradespeople, like home builders or carpenters, who work on their own.  [99% of whom have never voted for anyone but a Democrat - EVER.]

But while those policies, by and large, had been canceled because they did not meet the law’s requirements for minimum coverage, many of the New York policies being canceled meet and often exceed the standards, brokers say. The rationale for disqualifying those policies, said Larry Levitt, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, was to prevent associations from selling insurance to healthy members who are needed to keep the new health exchanges financially viable.  [Yes, the healthy cannot possibly have such good insurance.  It would be unfair, unequal.  We must all share in the misery.]

Among those affected are members of the Authors Guild; the Advertising Photographers of America; the Suzuki Association of the Americas, a music teachers organization; theSociety of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators; the New York City Bar Association; and the New York County Medical Society. (One group, the Freelancers Union, negotiated a one-year exemption with the state.)  [Oh, to be in a union....]

But the pull quote of the entire article has to be this line.  I mean really, if this doesn't sum up the idiocity of the liberal mindset:

“One of the reasons to join a society is to get health insurance,” said Dr. Paul N. Orloff, president of the New York County Medical Society. Even doctors pay a lot for coverage, he said, because the days of trading medical care with colleagues are long gone. “In the old days, professional courtesy was the norm,” Dr. Orloff said.  [Yes, he really said that.  Who knew health insurance was such an integral part of our society?  Given that health insurance was largely an invention created during & after WWII to attract workers to companies, it makes one wonder how we got along for the first 160 years.]

And then there is this sad truth:

It is not lost on many of the professionals that they are exactly the sort of people — liberal, concerned with social justice — who supported the Obama health plan in the first place. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney. [If only she hadn't been lied to for 4 years by the same paper that wrote this story, she might have known what she was in for....  I'll be she re-ups her subscription though.  I also bet she voted for De Blasio.  If she doesn't like Obamacare, just wait & see what her mayor has in store for her.  People like her will never, let me say it again: NEVER, vote for a Republican, or at least admit it, lest they not get invited to the right cocktail parties...]

$4,759,236 paid to WedMD by Obamacare

Yes, that's right $4,759,236 paid to WedMD by Obamacare.  See this article in the Washington Times (not exactly a conservative paper):

Concierge medicine: WebMD pockets millions from feds to promote Obamacare

By Jim McElhalton - The Washington Times, Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Two months before enrollment began in the Obamacare exchanges, the administration’s top health care official heaped praise on WebMD for launching an online resource to help Americans navigate the complex law.

The consumer health care site had the occasional nice thing to say about Obamacare, too. In one article, it predicted doctors might pick up more patients and crowed in an article titled “7 Surprising Things About the Affordable Care Act” that many consumers already had received insurance refunds under the law.

But what neither Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius nor WebMD mentioned at the time was that the company, which millions of Americans regularly read for health news, also stood to earn millions of dollars from a federal contract to teach doctors about Obamacare.

The contract documents, reviewed by The Washington Times, reward WebMD handsomely. For instance, the fee schedule offers dozens of products, including:  

• As much as $126,826 for a single 5,000-word review article on scientific advances in a clinical topic.

• Up to $68,916 for a four-minute video from an opinion specialist.

• More than $140,000 for an eight-question online quiz.

WebMD says it doesn’t believe it had an obligation to disclose to its broad consumer base its $4.8 million contract with the government. The company says the contract, while awarded to WebMD, went through its Medscape platform, which provides continuing education to doctors in a password-protected portal and is run independently from WebMD’s news operation. 

The article goes on to describe what some this "funding" is intended for:

Under the contract, awarded through the General Services Administration’s supply schedule, the training services consist of lectures, articles, podcasts and “expert viewpoints” in audio, video or writing, among other presentations. Doctors can get continuing education credits for watching the videos.

A four minute expert viewpoint video — described in GSA documents as a way for “key opinion leaders to offer specific commentaries” — costs the government up to $68,916 under the contract.

An “exclusively sponsored” five- to eight-question quiz “to convey key sponsor messages” costs more than $140,000 under the contract for a three-month term.

Several of the online offerings through Medscape feature CMS personnel discussing Obamacare on video.

“The Health Insurance Marketplace: What does it mean for my practice?” features Dr. Eugene Freund, medical officer for the center for consumer information and insurance oversight at CMS.

In the video, Dr. Freund describes the enrollment, coverage changes, state and federal marketplaces and eligibility, but he also includes a hopeful message to doctors about the benefits of Obamacare.

“First, we should expect big changes in access,” Dr. Freund said on the video. “We should expect to see more patients because there will be an increased number of insured Americans.“The one-shop stopping assistance and the financial assistance based on eligibility, including tax credits to offset cost and cost-sharing subsidies, should increase the number of your patients who now have insurance.”

It’s unclear how much the presentation cost taxpayers, but records list varying prices for videos, including $129,219 for an “originally developed video webcast delivered by a single expert.”