A featured FoxNews.com story yesterday was headlined, “ObamaCare’s red state rate squeeze.” A subtitle said, “Study finds Obamacare premiums will be highest in states that did not vote for President Obama, prompting some lawmakers to say it proves ‘law picks winners and losers’ across the country.” Such a byline invites the reader to venture forward to the article itself whereupon a plethora of nonsense is unleashed.
First off, we find the author of this “study” is the Heritage Foundation, which hasn’t exactly had the best record on reports recently. Fox’s Maxim Lott uncritically cites the study, saying premiums are set to go up 50% in blue states and 78% in red states. Although we do not yet fully know how the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) affects insurance premiums, much has been written about how the ACA isn’t responsible for rate hikes, or even lower premiums for many, even in red states. In fact, Reuters has called the pricing “apolitical.”
Citing Avik Roy, a member of the Manhattan Institute, Koch-funded, right wing think tank, Lott says that “regulations” are the reason that blue states are getting better deals. Unfortunately for Fox, the opposite is more probable. The more regulated blue states have taken a more active approach to the ACA and have been able to post better premiums under the law. Those states where (Republican-controlled) governments rejected setting up exchanges themselves, rejected the expansion of Medicaid, and in general did less to set the law up, are seeing worse outcomes—a very unfortunate fact for their citizens, especially since those same states often have higher numbers of uninsured and could benefit from the law more.
Lott goes on to complain, by citing a “Republican Senate staffer,” that red states are “subsidizing the blue states’ Medicaid expansion.” This is laughable. Blue states generally subsidize red states by paying more into federal taxes than they get back. The quote also seems to miss the point that the Medicaid expansion was an option which Republicans could have opted to take. The staffer even seemed to acknowledge what a good deal the expansion was since he or she noted that the federal government pays “90 cents of every dollar to expand Medicaid to include childless adults.” The lack of cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
Although Lott does quote a pro-ObamaCare spokeswoman who points out that the ACA does make it illegal to “yank” coverage from sick people, Roy dismisses that notion, telling the reader that situation never happens anyway. He said, “[Insurance companies yanking coverage] almost never happens unless you’ve lied on your forms.” However before the ACA, insurance companies could try to wiggle out of coverage, for instance, by counting C-sections or premature births as “pre-existing conditions.”
Finally FoxNews.com reminds us that Republicans want to scrap the law, though it gives no mention of what they would do in its place. Maybe that’s because they know more of the country favors expanding the law or keep it as is than repealing it.