Sometimes it's a piece of cake to catch the WSJ editorial page in dissembling. Yesterday, they invented an Obama lie: that individual health insurance is more expensive than group coverage.
Anyone who works in the insurance field, as I do, knows without any additional thought that's simply not true, at least in an apples-to-apples comparison. The truth is that group health insurance is chock-full of benefits and lower deductibles and copays that can't be found in the individual market. It's like saying a Lexus is more expensive than a Hyundai Accent. Well, duh; it's not the same thing.
Still, the Journal quotes a CBO study, so it must be true, right?
Well, we report, you deride: Here's the study in question.
Note it does say exactly what the Journal says it does.
Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are much lower—about one-third lower for single coverage and half that level for family policies.
Here, however, is the next couple of sentences:
In large part, those differences reflect the fact that policies purchased in the individual market cover a lower share of enrollees’ health care costs, on average, which also encourages enrollees to use somewhat fewer services. At the same time, average administrative costs are higher for individually purchased policies.
Without even getting into details the CBO missed, it's clear that the editorial board simply cherry-picked the quote they wanted. In reality, when you compare coverages, individual insurance is a lousy deal for the price.
You, of course, knew that already. The Journal editors know it too -- after all, they read the CBO report. Ergo, they lied.