It turns out that massively flawed McKinsey study about employers dropping coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, didn't count. It was for entertainment purposes only, or something.
The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it captured the attitudes of employers and provided an understanding of the factors that could influence decision making related to employee health benefits.
As such, our survey results are not comparable to the healthcare research and analysis conducted by others such as the Congressional Budget Office, RAND and the Urban Institute. Each of those studies employed economic modeling, not opinion surveys, and focused on the impact of healthcare reform on individuals, not employer attitudes.
Comparing the McKinsey survey to economic estimates, such as the CBO’s, is comparing apples to oranges. While the McKinsey Quarterly article about the survey cited CBO estimates, any comparison is not apt. We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not. - The Washington Post
I think this ranks up there with "Not intended to be a factual statement."
This kind of paid-for propaganda purporting to be independent research has been part and parcel of the conservative/corporate playbook for decades, from cigarette smoke to global warming (and HFCS, and BPA). The lack of accountability for the effects and results of such claptrap is a glaring market failure criticism of the current "free market of ideas."
But that's just my opinion.
[Update] Wow. Recc list. I had intended this to be more of a quick since I hadn't seen it diaried yet and figured one of the FP'ers would get it, but since I'm on the Recc list, here is a link to the actual study!
As the survey results reported, 30 percent of respondents who said their companies offered employer sponsored health insurance said they would “definitely” or “probably” drop coverage in the years following 2014, the year the Affordable Care Act takes full effect. (Nine percent said “definitely,” and 21 percent said “probably.”)
McKinsey commissioned Ipsos, the third largest market and opinion research company in the world, to field the online survey based on a questionnaire developed by McKinsey. Respondents were drawn from a panel of nearly 600,000 people maintained by Ipsos, not from McKinsey clients. The survey instrument was administered directly by Ipsos using their wholly-owned online panel. - McKinsey
One might note that Ipsos was absent from FiveThirtyEight's original rankings of pollsters.
One might also inquire as to the people interviewed, given the fact that it was a "600,000 people...online panel." Online polls are notoriously awful, though I have no doubt Ipsos does its best to mitigate those weaknesses.
One of the more interesting aspects of the poll methodology, however, is the future prediction that is baked right into the questions. How many of those polled will actually be in a position to influence the decision of whether to keep or drop coverage in 2014? There's no way to know! After all, the ACA might force the company out of business before 2014, rendering the respondent's influence moot.
And it is impossible to assert the poll isn't meant to be predictive when it asked respondents to predict something. That's just the worst kind of behind-covering.
[Post Script Meta] - My last time on the Recc list was almost five years ago, I wonder what the record is for length of time between subsequent Recc list diaries. :) :)