-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the effects that the Senate health care bill would have on insurance premiums. In my writeup of the report, I emphasized the part of the analysis that projected the bill would raise premiums in the individual market by 10 percent to 13 percent, or more than $2,100 for the typical family policy. As I also noted, the report found that the bill would have a negligible impact on the employer-based market, causing either no change or a slight decrease in the price of premiums. Understandably, Democrats chose to focus on the news concerning the employer-based market, but I was surprised to see that the Washington Post, in a front page story, completely bought into their spin. The article, titled "Senate health bill gets a boost," begins:
As the Senate opened debate Monday on a landmark plan to overhaul the nation's health-care system, congressional budget analysts said the measure would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for the vast majority of Americans, contradicting assertions by the insurance industry that the average family's coverage would rise by thousands of dollars if the proposal became law.
The article continues along these lines, and only mentions the fact that it would increase premiums in the individual market after the jump to page A7, in paragraph 15 of an 18 paragraph story.
It's worth keeping in mind how much the goal posts have shifted this year. At the outset, reforming the health care system was supposed to bring down premiums that were imposing an economic burden on individuals and businesses. Now we're supposed to celebrate a bill that would raise premiums on individuals by 10-13 percent -- unless they qualify for government subsidies -- and that, at best, will have a minimal affect on premiums for employers (though other parts of the bill impose new taxes on them).
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/01/washington-post-spins-cbo-repo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 12.1.09 @ 12:25PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Washington Post Spins C links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dav id Gitlitz| 12.1.09 @ 2:29PM
The New York Times put the same spin on the CBO report. I didn't have the stomach to read down far enough to see whether they even the mention the projected rise in individual premiums. Birds of a feather, you know.
Oldefarte| 12.1.09 @ 2:46PM
In the first place, it is nothing but WELFARE; and in the second place, it will raise substantially the insurance premiums of all taxpayers currently having healthcare insurance!!!!
Dan| 12.1.09 @ 3:22PM
Anyone who thinks that Philip is onto something here should read this post by Ezra Klein: http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....hat_p.html
Key part: "But as the CBO explains on page five, part of the increase in the type of insurance being purchased is the result of "people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies." In other words, the change is driven by the subsidies, not offset by them.
To see this more clearly, imagine that the University of Florida decided to give incoming students who receive financial aid an $800 credit to purchase a laptop computer. You'd expect that the average computer purchased by students on financial aid would become a bit more expensive. But that wouldn't be because computers had become more expensive. It would be because people now had money to buy better computers."
ncatty| 12.1.09 @ 4:08PM
I will pay more for my own insurance and pay for part or all of yours also. I don't want to participate.
Nick| 12.1.09 @ 8:08PM
First, ObamaCare had to be done by the August recess.
Then it had to be done by September 15.
Then it had to be done by Columbus Day.
Then it had to be done by Halloween.
Then it had to be done by election day.
Then it had to be done by Thanksgiving.
Now it has to be done by Christmas/end of the year.
After that comes and goes, it'll have to be done by the State of the Union.
Then it will have to be done by....
ObamaCare is dead.
Buh-bye ObamaCare, buh-bye!
pallet racking| 1.8.10 @ 3:10AM
http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com