U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 21, 2016 11:39 AM UTC

A Fresh Dose of Bogus "Obamascare"

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

THURSDAY UPDATE: A commenter correctly notes below that while the nationwide rate of policyholders who receive tax credits to help cover insurance premiums is 85%, Colorado itself has a somewhat lower percentage of individual insured who get tax credits–61.9%, attributable to higher personal incomes in the state.

It’s certainly a big enough difference to merit clarifying, though the fact remains that the large premium hikes reported without any distinction as to who is affected are incorrect. We’re still talking about 7.7% of Colorado’s population, of whom a large percentage receive tax credits to reduce and even reverse the impact.

—–

Nothing but Obamascare on the Denver Post's front page today.
Nothing but Obamascare on the Denver Post’s front page.

Headlines across the state are blaring an alarming message today about large increases in health insurance premiums for Colorado proposed for next year–and as we’ve seen repeatedly now after premium hikes became political with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a “Obamacare,” factual reporting is taking a back seat to sensationalism.

AP via CBS4 is a good example:

Coloradans shopping for health insurance will see double-digit rate hikes next year, a result of insurers leaving the market and cutting plans.

The lack of any qualifiers in that sentence is enough to grab the attention of…well, everyone who pays for health insurance in Colorado–individuals, businesses, everybody. And it shouldn’t be necessary to remind our readers that the political opponents of Obamacare have no interest in clarifying. Today’s Denver Post story from reporter John Ingold, titled “Individual rates in Colo. to jump an average 20%,” does little to clear up the confusion:

The finalized numbers confirm the worries that began in June when the steep increases were first proposed. In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, a Republican, blamed the increases on President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, which led to the creation of the exchanges.

“The people of Colorado can’t afford Obamacare,” Gardner said. “Obamacare can’t keep its promises.”

Marguerite Salazar, Colorado’s insurance commissioner, said the increases are the result of rising health care costs overall. The increases for people who buy their plans on the state’s Obamacare exchange and those who buy insurance off of it will be roughly the same. [Pols emphasis]

That last statement, like the lede in the AP wire story most people are reading today, is extremely misleading with context. Without a expert’s understanding of the subject of health insurance, these news reports could easily lead ordinary citizens to believe that the cost of all health insurance in Colorado is dramatically spiking.

But turning to the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby, we finally see a story that doesn’t try to sensationalize first and explain later:

Health insurance premiums on Colorado’s individual market for 2017 will be about 20 percent higher than those from this year, but not everyone will have to pay so much. [Pols emphasis]

Wait, what? Didn’t you just read from the Associated Press that “Coloradans shopping for health insurance will see double-digit rate hikes next year?” As Ashby reports to his small media market, that’s not the whole story. Not even close:

That large increase applies only to individuals who get their insurance through the state’s health care exchange — known as Connect For Health Colorado — who don’t qualify for federal tax credits, according to the Colorado Division of Insurance. [Pols emphasis]

Those who are qualified for credits and continue to have the same or cheaper plan as this year could see an average decrease in rates of about 11 percent to 29 percent, while others on the exchange can minimize their increase to about 13 percent by switching to a lower cost plan, the division said.

Meanwhile, the average person on employer-sponsored plans, which make up about 51 percent of all insured Coloradans, all will see an increase of about 2.1 percent, said Marguerite Salazar, Colorado’s insurance commissioner.

In truth, the “average 20% increase” only applies to individual plans sold via the state’s insurance exchange–less than 8% of Colorado’s population according to the Colorado Health Foundation. What’s more, 85% 62% (see above) of individual policyholders through the insurance exchange receive federal tax credits to ease the burden–so much so that most of them will in fact see a decrease, not an increase, in their premiums. For the majority of Coloradans who get their insurance through their employer, that 2.1% increase you see buried in these stories–even though it applies to vastly more people–is considerably less alarming.

So with all of this in mind, what the hell is (almost) every media outlet in the state doing misinforming the public like this? This kind of grossly misleading sensationalism in journalism is never okay–and just weeks from a major election, it’s a serious problem.

Obamacare’s enemies have flooded the debate with preposterous lies from the moment the law was introduced in Congress. This is another opportunity to ask our friends in the fourth estate to please stop helping them.

Tweet
Share

Comments

30 thoughts on “A Fresh Dose of Bogus “Obamascare””

  2. Figures can lie and liars can figure …

    Open enrollment (shopping season) begins a week before voting. In the meantime, people can be scared by the averages and not know how the situation could impact them or their neighbors.

  3. Obamacare is the biggest swindle in American history. What happened to my $2500 premium decrease?? Why did millions of Americans lose their coverage when Obama said they could keep it?

    Obamacare's lies are why Democrats lost everything in 2010 and will never get it back. Repeal it and let it go.

        1. Its fun to respond to him/her because he sets himself/herself up as a straw man/woman almost every time he/she posts on Coloradopols. His/her posts undermines the conservative position almost every time.

    1. Speaking of 8%, how are those hard-right gunhead tea partiers doing back in P-town? Did the Pueblo Republican Party ever recover from all of the embezzling and misuse of funds for which they had to discard both their Chairman and their Treasurer?

      You know what they say about glass houses, and how many of which are born every minute…

  5. My (completely anecdotal) experience:  I have been purchasing health insurance for my self-employed family for 10 years.  From '07 through '14, prior to exchanges, my rates went up an average of 10% a year. We tweaked coverages and changed carriers several times, and my wife and I aged (which increases premiums), but generally other variables were constant.  Some years we had increases of as much as 19% and some years only 3%. 2015, first year on the exchange, premiums were down 27% (thanks Colo HealthOp), plus we got a small subsidy.  

    This year, rates were up 33% (bye bye Colo HealthOp), and because our business is doing well, we probably will not qualify for a subsidy.  But, even with that outrageous single year increase, we are only back to pre-Exchange premium levels.  We have fewer providers in-network, and slightly higher deductibles, but there are no caps on benefits (thanks Obama).  

    So if, as predicted, we get another 15-20% rate increase for 2017, we will be no worse off then we probably would have been without Obamacare, may get some subsidy to defray expenses, and still be paying waaaay too much for health insurance.  

    The system is broken, but the problem is not Obamacare. If you want to fix the problem (I am looking at you Cory G.) propose something that will not kill people. Taking away health insurance from millions and allowing insurance companies to market sham, no benefits policies across state lines is not a solution. 

  6. Colorado Pols is guilty of the same bogus bullshit that he/she accuses others of committing. I don't have time right now to deal with every lie but let me address one of the more easily refuted now. I'll come back later and address more of them after I have had a chance to talk to Vincent Plymell over at the Division of Insurance.

    What’s more, 85% of individual policyholders through the insurance exchange receive federal tax credits to ease the burden–so much so that most of them will in fact see a decrease, not an increase, in their premiums.

    While that may be true nationally, here in Colorado only 61.9% of the people who purchase insurance through the exchange receive tax credits.

    Chart

    March 31, 2016 Effectuated Enrollment Snapshot – CMS.gov

    As the math demonstrates, 41,249 families will face the full brunt of these tax premium increases. And, this does not include the thousands of Coloradans who purchase individual health insurance outside the exchange.

    1. That's useful info (I didn't know Colorado's rate of subsidy was that low either) but it doesn't make their argument "bullshit." This is still only about 7.7% of the population, not everyone, and a majority of them do get tax credits.

      ACA isn't perfect but this isn't really the fault of ACA, and the effect is not nearly as great as the wingers claim. I'll be interested in hearing what else you come up with.

      1. I'll have more soon. But, if Colorado Pols can't get this simple fact straight (from the very source that he/she cites), can we trust anything else that he/she says?

        1. We're guilty of not scrolling down far enough on the memo to look at the chart, relying only on the number they quoted at the top of the memo for the whole nation. Thanks for showing us that the percentage in Colorado is somewhat lower, we've updated the post to reflect that. If you find any other facts needing clarification or correction, please bring them to our attention and we'll take care of it.

          1. It's no big deal. I'm sorry, it is. More bogus BS!

            In your post, this comment and your update, you act as if the increase in health insurance taxes premiums is no big deal. I don't know if you are ignorant of the facts or just lying. But, let's do the math, shall we.

            1.  7.7% of Coloradans purchase their health insurance on the individual market (both on and off the exchange).

            2  For those who are mathematically challenged, that comes to approximately 450,000 people.

            3.  As noted in my comment, only 108,311 Coloradans purchase their health insurance on the individual insurance exchange – Connect for Colorado.

            4.  Still fewer qualify for the advance tax credit subsidy to help pay the cost of the insurance taxes premiums – 67,062. That means that only 14.9% of the people who purchase insurance on the individual market (both on and off the exchange) receive tax credit subsidies.

            5.  Therefore, rounding to the nearest ten thousand, approximately 380,000 Coloradans are going to be hit with these increases in health insurance taxes premiums.

            No, Pols, this is a big deal. Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans will be forced to forego health insurance or purchase shittier policies which will have higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket maximums, higher co-pays and narrower provider networks.

            1. Hey, it's clear you're upset about this, but where are you getting these numbers?

              http://connectforhealthco.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Marketplace-Dashboard-August-2016.pdf

              This says 200,000 people are covered by the exchange, not 100,000. Not trying to poke the bear but am I reading this wrong?

              And I don't think Pols is claiming this is not a "big deal." It's just not the end of the world like Republicans say it is. And 7.7% is not everyone. Obamacare isn't perfect but it is helping a lot of people. Do you have an alternative or are we just carping?

              2. The fact is more people are being hurt (380,000) than helped (67,000). We can’t have an honest discussion of policy based on bogus facts. We, “progressives.” are supposed to be the fact based people. I fear that Pols is merely engaging in propaganda to support his masters in the Democratic Party. This news was a real boost for ColoradoCare – Yes. The Democratic Party elite don’t like singlepayer. In this case, Colorado Pols has been as bad as Faux News.

                  1. If you go back to the March report from Colorado Connect and compare it to the CMS report you will see that Colorado Connect's figures are off by 20,000 (effectuated enrollments). I suspect that there is some book cooking going on. CMS looks a people who actually enroll and stay enrolled (ie. pay the first month's premium and all subsequent premiums). Colorado Connect counts them enrolled if they only pay the first month's premium. In case you  are wondering, that is how many people dropout having paid only one month's premium. Really, really sad. So, yes, I trust CMS

                  2. For the sake of argument, let's take the August Marketplace Dashboard report from Colorado Connect. According to that report, 96,017 enrollments qualified for tax credit subsidies. Even with these inflated numbers more that 350,000 Coloradans will see their insurance premiums skyrocket in 2017.

                    1. No, but that's not really what you're doing. You are accusing Colorado Pols of minimizing the problem to service their "Democratic party masters," but you yourself appear to be lowballing the numbers to make it look worse. And that makes sense because you are a ColoradoCare zealot.

                      I think it's shameful that ColoradoCare supporters disparage the gains we've made in covering Coloradans via Obamacare to sell ColoradoCare. ColoradoCare is DOA, so instead of bashing everyone who doesn't side with you, try a constructive dialogue instead.

                      Have a nice day.

                    2. I am not low-balling the numbers. Colorado Connect admits that it is high-balling the numbers but does so only in the footnotes on the second page. The 200,000 number that you have cited is described as:

                      A unique number of insured Individuals / Employees / Dependents who have at one time had either a Submitted or Effectuated enrollment for Individual and the Small Business (SHOP) Marketplace. Includes both Medical and Dental policies (including those who only purchased Dental). Enrollments generally move from Submitted to Effectuated (and/or terminated). "Cumulative" terminology includes those who Effectuated in the current plan year and later terminated a policy. "Current" terminology does not include those who Effectuated and later terminated in the current plan year. "Canceling" occurs to an account that was never effectuated and "Terminating" occurs to an account that was at one point effectuated and later didn't pay.

                      So, the number of 200,000 lives covered includes:

                      1. Those people who effectuated and continued to pay for policies throughout the year.

                      2.  Those who effectuated but later terminated coverage by failing to pay the premiums.

                      3.  Those who submitted applications but never followed through to effectuate/buy insurance.

      2. Actually, Pols has misstated the number. 7.7% of all Coloradans purchase health insurance on the individual market (on and off the exchange). That's 450,000. Only 67,000 Coloradans qualify for the tax credit subsidy. This means that only 14.9% of people who purchase insurance on the individual market (on and off the exchange) get any kind of tax credit subsidy. Hardly a majority. 

  7. It is also important to note that those on the exchange are disproportionately people with high medical needs. It includes all the folks who were on Cover Colorado in the past.  What is hidden is that people with employer sponsored insurance, while not seeing as much of a rate increase, are seeing increased out of pocket expenses. 

    http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2016-employer-health-benefits-survey/

    What this means is that if you are sick, you can't afford to use your health insurance. That is the fatal flaw in our current profit-based insurance system.

    In fact, you can now buy insurance for your insurance. A product that insures your gap in coverage! 

    http://khn.org/news/would-you-like-some-insurance-with-your-insurance/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=34662261&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_277rWm6Rga68UeZ77A4gcOY2aVku3LO8CRgbewmlp4mLRAITh1pu3_OWcMAkEkfWjtn3ttgcRLjzZfmn5D4FxzyXDEw&_hsmi=34662261

    Obviously, I recommend a YES vote on ColoradoCare, Amendment 69.  Stop the madness, at least in Colorado. Help people with chronic or severe medical conditions get their needs met without the risk, hassle and cost of our current system. 

    1. Actually, people with employer sponsored health insurance are seeing three things:

      First, as you so aptly noted, they are seeing their deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums and co-pays increase – meaning if they need medical care they will have to dig deeper into their own pockets to pay for it. That is, of course, if they have any pockets left.

      Second, employers are shifting more of the premiums to employees. Which is why they don't have pockets left.

      Third, employers are buying insurance with narrower provider networks so employees have fewer healthcare choices. Remember: "You can keep your doctor."

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

90 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!