The desperate defense of Obamacare has some Obamacare fans making arguments that are tending towards the more acerbic and more misleading than ever before in their attempts to defend the law. Here we address the 20 percenters, those writers proclaiming Obamacare success because the CBO projects that the federal government outlays for Obamacare will be 20 percent less than originally projected.
In response to the release by the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2015 “Updated Estimates of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act,” CBO, 1/15/15, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49892-breakout-AppendixB.pdf,” there were many Obamacare supporters who played the role of the stooge perfectly. These 20 percenters become the reporting clowns for Obamacare, weaving entertaining tales of success amidst failure, of government savings amidst consumer misery, avoiding data that suggest that health insurance and healthcare remain unaffordable for Americans.
1-20 percenters arguing the SUCCESS of Obamacare based on the changes to the law since 2010, including the Supreme Court decision making Medicaid expansion optional and the recession.
The 20 percent reduction in federal outlays is based on 2010 estimates, before Obamacare was enacted. The CBO acknowledges: “The downward revision since March 2010 to CBO and JCT’s estimate of the net federal costs of the ACA’s insurance coverage provisions…is attributable to many factors: Changes in law, revisions to CBO’s economic projections, the Supreme Court decision that made the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid optional for states, administrative actions, new data, and views differ on how much of the slowdown is attributable to the recession,” (CBO, page 15).
2-20 percenters arguing about reductions in overall federal government outlays for Obamacare when overall federal spending can’t be determined.
The CBO makes projections from year to year about the direct insurance coverage provisions of Obamacare and their costs to the federal government compared to their own prior projections. But the CBO tells us that it cannot determine the OTHER BUDGETARY EFFECTS, the non-direct insurance coverage effects of Obamacare on things like Medicare and the tax code, among others.
The CBO states, “…estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA and do not reflect all of the act’s budgetary effects…The incremental budgetary effects of those noncoverage provisions…cannot all be separately identified using the agency’s normal procedures. As a result, CBO does not produce estimates of the budgetary effects of the ACA,” (page 1).
3-20 percenters focusing on the OLDEST CBO Obamacare information to make a splashier headline regarding a 20 percent lower projection of federal outlays rather than the 7 percent lower projection of outlays based on CBO projections from last year to this year. That’s the 20 percenters, or should we call them the seven percenters?
The CBO has made more recent projections since 2010, so why aren’t the storytellers using projections from last year, 2014? Could it be because the REDUCTION IN OUTLAYS (COSTS) are reduced by only 7 percent (rather than 20) compared to last year’s projections? “…lowered estimate of net costs [to the federal government]…7 percent…[from last year’s projections], (CBO, 1/15/15, page 11).
4- 20 percenters applauding lower than anticipated enrollment EVERY YEAR accounting for less federal money being spent on premium assistance tax credits.
The CBO predicts savings in federal outlays from premium assistance tax credits because, “Lower estimated enrollment in coverage obtained through the exchanges in every year accounts for the majority of the $28 billion reduction in the estimated cost of premium assistance tax credits,” (CBO, page 11).
5-20 percenters celebrating that more people than expected will be under-insured risking financial devastation in the event of illness just to save money on premiums.
The CBO predicts the government will save money on cost-sharing subsidies, the payments available only to individuals who choose a silver plan and better because more people than anticipated are choosing bronze plans.
The CBO predicts “…more people will forgo those subsidies by choosing to enroll in a bronze plan instead of a silver plan…the agencies expect that some people purchasing coverage through exchanges solely to comply with the individual mandate will be focused on minimizing their premium payments and thus will continue to choose bronze plans.’”(CBO, page 13).
6-The 20 percenters are celebrating that Medicaid is costing a lot more than projected.
“Medicaid and CHIP under the ACA over the 2015–2024 period will be $851 billion, $59 billion (7 percent) more than the April 2014 projection. Roughly half of the upward revision reflects an increase in the estimated share of people enrolling in Medicaid under the ACA who will be newly eligible…Federal costs per Medicaid enrollee are much higher for those who are newly eligible…because the federal government pays a larger share of the costs for the newly eligible…” (CBO, 1/15/15, page 13).
To me it’s obvious that the Obamacare defenders, the 20 percenters, the storytelling authors who act as stooges for Obamacare have sacrificed all to defend the law, their credibility, their ability to cover the whole story in their storytelling, and ultimately their concern for citizens who need accuracy to better communicate and influence decisions that are affecting our lives.
Instead the 20 percenters ignore clear indications of consumer experience with the measurements of Obamacare considered by the CBO that show a population that is still suffering from financial challenges making more of them than expected newly eligible for Medicaid, a population that is still gravely concerned about their expenses for health insurance to the point of trying to save money by purchasing less adequate insurance coverage and a population whose uninsured population has not gone down as much as hoped for with the passage of this law.
