News from the Plains: All this RED can make you BLUE
Comparing apples to oranges to bullsh*t
by Barry Friedman
Last week, Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak claimed insurance rates would "skyrocket" in the state because of the Affordable Care Act. Doak, a long time critic of ACA, seemed almost gleeful in delivering the bad news.
"Our fears have been confirmed," the press release states. "For some consumers, the cost of health insurance will increase significantly. This is more proof that Obama-Care will hurt Oklahoma families and businesses."
Notice the hyphen, notice how Doak chokes over even having his office use the word,
Obamacare, notice how he assumes what he's trying to prove. If Doak spent a little less time in
armored cars, pretending to be
Hotch, a lot less time being a partisan hack, regurgitating the same GOP invective, and any time dealing with the problem of
690,000 uninsured Oklahomans, we would all be better off. His statement on the effects of Obamacare (see how easy it is to say?) is not only a twisted, tortured, cherry-picked, and deliberately misleading assessment of the potential health landscape, his office is proud of the dodge.
More about that later.
Oh, about his "fears being confirmed"--puhlease. Doak has been doing nothing but ginning up those fears since ACA was first proposed, so, as the kids like to say, don't even.
First off, as David Blatt, director of the Oklahoma Policy Institute, reminds us, these findings, far from being studied and distilled from a disinterested party, came from luft.
His claims are not based on data, but rather on informal conversations that his staff apparently had with some insurance carriers.
And then there's
this...
A study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation of California and Washington, D.C., analyzed premiums in 17 states and found that they will vary widely across the country but "are generally lower than expected."
"Most people buying their own insurance will qualify for premium tax credits, which will significantly lower the cost of their premiums," the study states.
ACA, even its proponents will agree, is 4144.4 miles (roughly the distance to Sweden) away from true healthcare reform, but if one woman gets a cancerous mole screened who otherwise wouldn't, good on Obamacare, which is why this manipulation by the commissioner's office is so deceptive and infuriating.
To wit ...
-Doak didn't include the proposed rates from all those companies who will be offering insurance as part of the exchange, which is the whole GOP point about competition.
-Doak doesn't factor in the kinds of coverage that will be offered, so if one coverage includes maternity benefits and one doesn't, it's pointless to compare rates.
-Doak doesn't consider that pre-existing conditions will no longer be excluded, which means better coverage, albeit more expensive and, arguably, worth paying for.
-Doak doesn't mention that low-income Oklahomans will be receiving federal subsidies to cover the premiums.
And this last point is kind of important.
The lower your income, the larger your subsidy. For instance, those making $17,235 a year will pay no more than 4% of income, or $57 a month, while those with incomes between $34,470 and $45,960 will pay a maximum of 9.5% of income, or $364 a month. The federal government will cover the rest.
So, if your premium increases, but you receive a subsidy to cover it (
and your hypertension is covered
and your kids can stay on your policy
and your insurance company has to spend
85% of your premium on care and quality improvement), Doak's argument is not only bogus, it's cynically and deliberately mean-spirited.
Kelly Collins, a spokeswoman for Doak, said that federal subsidies were not included in the assessment, essentially admitting that, yeah, the office just used the numbers it liked.
"It's basically impossible because you're comparing apples to oranges," Collins said in an email to the World.
So you decided to be irresponsible instead.
Affordable Care Act, Oklahoma Policy Institute