- "The law amounts to a 'government takeover' of health insurance and health care." The article's conclusion: "it falls far short of a government takeover." That conclusion rests largely on the fact that "Medical care will be provided by private hospitals and doctors." But as I explain in this study, "it is irrelevant whether we describe medical resources (e.g., hospitals, employees) as 'public' or 'private.' What matters—what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership—is who controls the resources." Obama health official Jeanne Lambrew acknowledges as much: "the government role in socialized medicine systems [can include] public financing of private insurance and providers." And as I concluded in this study, "Compulsory 'private' health insurance would give government as much control over the nation’s health care sector as a compulsory government program." I wonder if the article's authors spoke to anyone who raised this perspective.
- "The law will gut Medicare by cutting more than $500 billion from the program over 10 years; seniors will lose benefits and won't be able to keep their doctors." Conclusion: "The gutting of Medicare claim goes too far...What this means for seniors is a bit murkier." True enough: even if ObamaCare's implausible Medicare cuts take effect, they clearly would not "gut" Medicare. (BTW, click here or here for a politically sustainable way to restrain Medicare spending.) The authors also note that Medicare Advantage enrollees would lose some benefits. But when the article claims that ObamaCare will not eliminate any "basic" Medicare benefits, it neglects to mention that Medicare's chief actuary estimates that the law could cause 15 percent of hospitals, home health agencies, and other providers to stop accepting Medicare patients. If your hospital no longer accepts your Medicare coverage, is that not a benefit cut?
- "The law will cause 87 million Americans to lose their current coverage." Conclusion: "How true is it? Partly, at best. But evidence is limited." The House Republicans' Pledge to America claims that ObamaCare "will force some 87 million Americans to drop their current coverage." The word drop is a bit strong; it's more accurate to say that many Americans will have to switch to another plan, even if it's just a more-expensive version of their current plan. Indeed, HHS estimates that 69 percent of employer plans will have to do so by 2013. Yet some people are being dropped from their current health insurance. When Principal Financial Group leaves the market, its nearly 1 million enrollees will lose their current health plan. Industry analysts expect more such departures. Why no mention of that?
- "The law is driving up costs and premiums and will continue to do so over the next several years." Conclusion: "There may be very small increases initially." Here the article is kinder to ObamaCare than even ObamaCare's supporters are. May be? Even ObamaCare's supporters admit the law will increase premiums for some people. Very small increases? Even HHS estimates that the requirement that consumers purchase unlimited annual coverage could increase premiums for some by 7 percent. (There's no mention of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, which says ObamaCare will increase premiums for some of its customers by nearly 30 percent.) And why only initially? Do the authors expect that there will be no premium increases when HHS eventually stops issuing waivers? Or when HHS sets a minimum level of coverage that Americans must purchase in 2014? Or that ObamaCare has solved the tragedy of the commons? For support, the article claims, "the Obama administration, citing [various] estimates...says the law isn't responsible for any increase greater than 1 to 2 percent." Actually, that's not what the administration says -- it's what they want you to think they're saying. Read this letter and other administration utterances carefully. They say "1-2 percent" when speaking of ObamaCare's average effect on premiums, and "minimal" when speaking of anything other than the average effect. (The administration's threshold for "minimal" is presumably somewhere north of 7 percent.)
- "The law's expansion of Medicaid will put massive pressure on state budgets at a time when many are already in crisis." Conclusion: "The impact will probably be small, but it's hard to say for sure." The article only cites figures generated by supporters of the law, who say the impact will be small. Why just mention that there are figures from the other side? Why not include them?
- "The new law uses tax dollars to pay for abortions." Conclusion: "Open to interpretation." This was a missed opportunity to examine two crucial questions. First, would federal insurance subsidies truly be segregated from the separate premiums that consumers in ObamaCare's exchanges would have to pay for elective-abortion coverage? Or would this just be an accounting gimmick? What would happen, for example, if there were more abortions than an insurer anticipated, and those separate premiums proved insufficient to pay for them? How would you keep one side of the ledger from spilling over into the other? Second, would the availability of federal subsidies for health insurance plans that make elective-abortion coverage available as a rider increase enrollment in those plans? If so, wouldn't that implicitly subsidize elective abortions? Rather than examine those questions, the article punted.
On the whole, I'd say this fact check may have been very kind to the new law.