About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity is the one "obscuring the facts" on premiums under health care reform

February 26, 2010 10:49 pm ET — 17 Comments

While attempting to correct President Obama, Sean Hannity cited the Congressional Budget Office's statement that "the average premium" for individual policyholders would increase "10 to 13 percent" under the Senate health bill. However the CBO stated that premiums paid by a majority of people insured on the individual market would decrease when factoring in federal subsidies included in the bill.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the February 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Biden's hot mic wasn't the only problem the Democrats ran into at yesterday's health care summit. Facts also seemed to pose difficulty for them. Now that was particularly evident in the President's exchange with Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander.

OBAMA: So, Lamar when you mentioned earlier that you said premiums go up, that's just not the case according to the Congressional Budget Office.

ALEXANDER:  If you going to contradict me I ought to have a chance to -- the Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market, as a result of the Senate bill.

OBAMA: No, this is an example of where we got to get our facts straight.

HANNITY: All right, now a look back at that CBO report commissioned by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh shows that it is the president who needs to get his facts straight. The report concludes, "the average premium per person covered would be about 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under the current law." Wow, what a great bill. No wonder the Democrats are obscuring the facts.


CBO backs Obama: Bill would actually result in lower premiums for most enrollees

CBO: Premiums paid by most individuals would decrease. The CBO estimated that premiums paid by a majority of people insured on the individual market would decrease when factoring in federal subsidies that are included in the bill. CBO stated, "The majority of nongroup enrollees (about 57 percent) would receive subsidies via the new insurance exchanges, and those subsidies, on average, would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premium, CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate. Thus, the amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums charged under current law." Conservative claims that the bill would increase premiums in the individual market are based on estimates that do not factor in subsidies. CBO stated that figures identical to those cited by conservatives "indicate what enrollees would pay, on average, not accounting for the new federal subsidies."

CBO: Premiums increase for some in nongroup market rise due to people buying more coverage. CBO found that the increase in average premiums in the nongroup market was due to people purchasing "a greater amount of coverage:

Average premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher because a greater amount of coverage would be obtained. In particular, the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees' costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits. Those expansions would reflect both the minimum level of coverage (and related requirements) specified in the proposal and people's decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies.

This increase would be partially offset by "a net reduction in costs that insurers incurred to deliver the same amount of insurance coverage to the same group of enrollees" and "a shift in the types of people obtaining coverage."

Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums." The Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported on Alexander and Obama's exchange in a February 25 post:

Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama just had a contentious exchange on this point, so it's worth settling the issue: Yes, the CBO found health-care reform would reduce premiums. The issue gets confused because it also found that access to subsidies would encourage people to buy more comprehensive insurance, which would mean that the value of their insurance would be higher after reform than before it. But that's not the same as insurance becoming more expensive: The fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you're comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform.

CNN's Velshi: "57 percent of those insured will see a government subsidy, which will bring the average premium down, actually." During CNN's coverage of the health care summit, Wolf Blitzer aired a portion of Obama's exchange with Alexander, and chief business correspondent Ali Velshi stated that Obama was "more right than Senator Alexander." Velshi stated: "The CBO, which is an independent -- independent of the political party -- says that rates will go up. But here's the reality: 57% of those insured will see a government subsidy, which will bring the average premium down, actually. It would be -- it would drive average premiums down 7 to 10 percent, but this is all based on assumptions."

PolitiFact: "CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." A January 27 PolitiFact.com analysis labeled the claim that health care reform would cause premiums for most Americans to increase "pants on fire" false and stated: "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease." From PolitiFact.com:

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous.

The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.

CBO: Premiums in group market will not increase. CBO estimated that the large group and small group markets make up 83 percent of the insurance market and that those premiums will not increase.

 

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by sabrinacute19 (February 26, 2010 11:15 pm ET)
         


      Get medical insurance for your entire family at the best price from http://bit.ly/atGzeD
      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (February 27, 2010 12:25 am ET)
      2 3
      Sh(yawn), Sh(yawn), Sh(yawn), you just don't get it, do you? My net rates are going to go down, because the gubermint is goin' to take $$ out of your pocket and put in mine to help me pay for the increased coverage I will demand. And that's not a premium increase for you, it's a fee/tax that don't count as insurance costs. Does that help you understand, Sh(yawn)?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (February 27, 2010 11:57 am ET)
        3  
        What's your adjusted gross income?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jose2 (March 01, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
             
          If health care passes, I may stop earning money so I can jump on the gravy train too.

          In their infinite wisdom, government doesn't care what you are worth. Instead they measure how much money you accept from others. That is how millionaires show up in poverty.

          Then I'll go back to work after the economy collapses. Why should I subsidize a bunch of bums? I could use a five year vacation to enjoy life.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by At_odds (February 27, 2010 3:07 am ET)
      9  
      They are both right in their own line of thinking. Its just cleverly vague wording on both sides.

      The conservative view that premiums will go up is true but misleading because the mean cost of premiums (taxes) will be something like 10% higher. Misleading because the average cost of healthcare would go down as a result of better standards for coverage.

      The liberal view is also correct because the median premium (after subsidies) will be dramatically reduced. So for most people, premiums go down and so do out of pocket expenses and copays.

      Although both statements are true, the liberal one is clearly more relevant as the conservative argument aims at convincing people that their costs will rise when they most likely wont.

      The only valid argument I have heard from the republicans is the moral one against progressive policies such as our tax structure and the subsidies included in this bill. Still, thats a somewhat stalemated, values-based argument that liberals have had the upper hand for over a century (check out historical income taxes)...Because of this conservatives need to lie and mislead in order to alleviate the dissonance they would feel if they did not promote their values.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by knowledgereigns (February 27, 2010 9:41 am ET)
        2  
        Bravo!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jose2 (March 01, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
        1 2
        Put more people on insurance, allow existing conditions, and then spread the cost over more people. Then create new bureaucracies, create new piles of cash, and then say their costs "most like won't" rise.

        You libs are a barrel of laughs.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jcgrant (February 27, 2010 6:14 am ET)
         
      This is very poorly done; that is, your argument is a non sequitur.

      Senator Alexander, Sean Hannity, CNN's Velshi, PolitiFact and now you all agree that premiums would rise in the individual market under the Senate bill. President Obama denied that premiums would rise in the individual market.

      Whether premiums are subsidized or not doesn't change the fact that premiums rise.

      The idea behind "healthcare reform" is to lower costs no matter who pays.

      You do a disserve to everyone by further "obscuring the facts."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Snicker (February 27, 2010 7:57 am ET)
        7
      Bah, another propaganda piece. If you're going to quote the CBO as an authority the information they were given to work with must also be shown. The CBO aren't scientists, they take the information they're given, and only the information they're given and work with it. They do no investigation of an issue, they simply analyze the data they're given. If the data given is incomplete or flat out wrong, the conclusions they come to are probably incomplete or flat out wrong. You cannot in good conscience assume that they were given complete and totally accurate information. You must first examine the data they were given and see whether it was complete and accurate, then you can quote their conclusions and let people decide the worth of those conclusions based on the expertise of the CBO.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (February 27, 2010 10:23 am ET)
        3  
        The CBO analysis is linked above. Feel free to point out anywhere you think it's lacking.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by At_odds (February 27, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
        3  
        The CBO uses the numbers and provisions in the bill. Not just some random number that Obama just pulled out of thin air...The republicans, to the contrary, have somewhat recently pulled this talking point out of their asses to make you doubt the legitimacy of the CBO analysis. This, after trying to use the analysis as proof that the republican bill would cut premiums by 10%, and that the average cost will go up (as I explained above). Don't you see whats happening? Stop buying into their tricks. This is pure obstructionism and spoiled milk from the republicans.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (February 27, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
        3  
        The CBO aren't scientists - which means nothing to the wingnuts, after all, they claim that 'the great (algore) global warming hoax' is due to scientists lying.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (February 28, 2010 9:42 am ET)
        2 1
        I see that this is the new wingnut attack by claiming the CBO was given bogus data and therefore its conclussions must be ignored.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jose2 (March 01, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
            1
          Tell the CBO to calculate based on collecting taxes for 10 years and paying benefits for 6 years.

          Then tell them to ignore the costs put in a separate defense bill that funnels money into health care through the veterans hospital.

          What kind of conclusion to you expect?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by little poncho (February 27, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
         
      IT WOULD BE GREAT IF PRESIDENT OBAMA, WOULD GO AFTER THESE RIGHT WING HATE MONGERS'.......... FINE THEM HARD$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.