XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.media   
   From: weberm@polaris.net   
      
   By David Catron   
      
   The legacy news media are once again doting on the porcine Affordable   
   Care Act with an extravagance not lavished on a pig since P.G.   
   Wodehouse created the immortal Empress of Blandings. If you are   
   unfamiliar with the latter, she was a gigantic Berkshire sow who was   
   treated by her aristocratic owner with a level of reverence that caused   
   his friends and family to question his grip on reality. Likewise, after   
   an all-too-brief flirtation with fact-based journalism inspired by the   
   bungled rollout of Healthcare.gov, mainstream reporters have reverted   
   to coverage of Obamacare that suggests they, too, may be delusional.   
      
   Most voters view Obamacare as a bloated, stinking beast. Yet, if you   
   browse the web for recent news on the president’s “signature domestic   
   achievement” your search engine will return countless articles   
   describing it as a spectacular success story. They all have titles   
   like, “Millions Paying less than $100 per month for Obamacare,”   
   “Obamacare ‘sticker shock’ not so shocking, conservative economist   
   suggests,” and “Most Obamacare exchange enrollees were previously   
   uninsured, study finds.” These stories seem to be at odds with well-   
   documented facts and strangely similar to Obama administration talking   
   points.   
      
   This is no coincidence. The figures used in the hundreds of articles   
   about the low cost of Obamacare plans, for example, come directly from   
   the administration. Last week, the Department of Health and Human   
   Services (HHS) released a “research brief” that claims, “During the   
   open enrollment period, more than 5.4 million people selected a   
   Marketplace plan through the Federally-facilitated Marketplace [FFM]…   
   Approximately 87 percent of individuals in the FFM selected plans with   
   tax credits…The average tax credit amount was $264 and the after-tax   
   credit premium was $82.” The media gleefully reported this as good   
   news.   
      
    CNN, for example, reported, “The federal government is shelling out   
   $264 a month, on average, for people who qualify for premium subsidies   
   on the Obamacare federal exchange.” But the government doesn’t “shell   
   out” anything. It takes our money and gives it away. So, how much will   
   it take from us and give to these people? Well, 87 percent of 5.4   
   million comes to about 4.7 million. And these folks are going to   
   receive an average of $264 from us every month. That’s more than $1.2   
   billion per month. This comes to more than $14 billion over the course   
   of a year, and well over $140 billion over the next decade—out of your   
   pocket.   
      
   OK, then, what about Obamacare’s less-than-shocking sticker shock?   
   According to a story in the Washington Post, “Consumers who bought   
   their own coverage between 2010 and 2012 saw the average cost of their   
   plan increase between 14 percent and 28 percent when they switched to   
   new coverage under the Affordable Care Act, according to Mark Pauly, a   
   professor of health-care management at the University of Pennsylvania's   
   Wharton School of Business.” Wait a minute. President Obama promised us   
   that health insurance premiums were going to go down by $2,500 per   
   family. So, how can double-digit premium hikes be good news?   
      
   It turns out that this is “good news” only because Professor Pauly’s   
   figures aren’t as high as those shown in other studies. Avik Roy   
   reports, for example, that the Manhattan Institute has just completed a   
   county-by-county analysis on this issue. And the news isn’t quite as   
   “good” as the study quoted by the Post. “Yesterday, the Manhattan   
   Institute published the most comprehensive study yet on the topic,   
   analyzing premium data from 3,137 U.S. counties, and finding an average   
   rate hike of 49 percent.” So, our choices on Obamacare rate shock are   
   bad (Pauly) or really, really bad (Roy). Either way, President Obama   
   lied to the voters.   
      
   What about that new survey showing that most Obamacare enrollees were   
   previously uninsured? As it happens, that was conducted by the left-   
   of-center Kaiser Family Foundation and its results are highly suspect.   
   According to the announcement that appeared at Kaiser’s web site,   
   “Nearly six in 10 Americans who bought insurance for this year through   
   the health law’s online marketplaces were previously uninsured—most for   
   at least two years, according to a new survey that looks at the   
   experiences of those most affected by the law.” Why is this suspect?   
   Because it contradicts every other credible study that has been done on   
   the issue.   
      
   Two of those studies were conducted recently by organizations with   
   unimpeachable reputations for non-partisanship—the Rand Corporation and   
   McKinsey & Company. And their numbers are far lower than those produced   
   by Kaiser. As the Washington Post points out, “A Rand Corp. survey in   
   April found that one-third of exchange enrollees were previously   
   uninsured. McKinsey & Co. last month reported 26 percent of people   
   purchasing plans in the individual market, on and off the exchange,   
   were previously uninsured.” So, how did Kaiser manage to double the   
   figures produced by these organizations? Where there’s a will, there’s   
   a way.   
      
   And for the left, including the reporters of mainstrem news   
   organizations, there is a strong desire to make Obamacare look   
   successful and therefore render it less dangerous for the Democrats   
   this fall. Unlike Lord Emsworth, the eccentric owner of the Empress of   
   Blandings, they aren’t really delusional. They are simply dishonest.   
   So, they produce studies that don’t pass the laugh test, pretend that   
   double-digit increases in insurance premiums are no big deal, and   
   represent huge taxpayer-funded subsidies as something to be celebrated.   
   But no matter how much lipstick the media smears on this pig, they’ll   
   never make it look like a unicorn.   
      
      
   --   
   Q: Why is ObamaCare like a turd?   
   A: You have to pass it to see what's in it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)