After getting hammered on a series of government reports that they felt Republicans unfairly characterized, Democrats are taking the unusual step of responding to another potentially damaging report before the GOP attacks even start.
The report, released late Friday by the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, looks at the impact two provisions of the Affordable Care Act will have on health insurance premiums for small businesses. Republicans requested the report in 2011 when they slipped it into an appropriations bill.
Democrats expect the GOP to seize on a portion of the report that estimates that premiums will go up for most small firms.
“[W]e are estimating that 65 percent of the small firms are expected to experience increases in their premium rates while the remaining 35 percent are anticipated to have rate reductions,” the CMS report reads. “This results in roughly 11 million individuals whose premiums are estimated to be higher as a result of the ACA and about 6 million individuals who are estimated to have lower premiums.”
Those are very scary words for Democrats, and something you could expect to see in a Republican attack ad.
But that passage doesn’t tell the whole picture, says Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “This report is the latest instance of House Republicans attempting to peddle half-truths and incomplete data to justify their blind obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act,” Hammill said in a statement. “The Actuary notes in the report that the findings are incomplete, but Republicans are only interested in what they can use to mislead and deceive Americans about the ACA and its effect on what small businesses will pay for health coverage.”
The staff of Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, responded to the report Friday in detail, noting that nowhere does it say that the average premium for small businesses overall will go up. While premiums might go up for some, Waxman’s rebuttal says, they won’t overall, and “[o]n average, the premium decreases would be larger than the premium increase.”
The report’s 65-35 conclusion is based on the assumption that about 65 percent of businesses currently pay below-average prices, while 35 percent pay above average. After Obamacare, all businesses will end up closer to the average.
That disparity comes from the fact that insurance companies used to be able to charge more to companies that employed sick workers, and could also charge more for women. That meant disproportionately higher bills for a minority of companies.
Under Obamacare, however, that’s no longer allowed. Insurance companies can’t discriminate against sick people or women. They can only charge more based on age, geographic area, tobacco use, and whether the policy is for an individual or family.
This change is good, Democrats say, because it will make the marketplace more fair. They also point out that the CMS report itself leaves a lot of wiggle room. “There is a rather large degree of uncertainty associated with this estimate,” the report reads, adding that the real impact “could vary significantly.”
A RAND Corporation study, cited by the new report, analyzed the impact of the entire health law on small businesses’ average premiums and determined that “the effect would be minimal.” The Congressional Budget Office looked at the same question and also concluded that the overall impact would be small, ranging “from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016.”
Whether their pre-push-back works remains to be seen. In the past two weeks, Democrats have been raked over the coals for two different CBO reports, and had trouble changing the narrative, even when the facts were on their side.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."