WSJ Falsely Claims California Insurer Increased Rates “In Part To Comply With ObamaCare Mandates”

WSJ: “Blue Shield Of California ... Says It Must Raise Rates By As Much As 59%, In Part To Comply With ObamaCare's Mandates.” From a January 20 Wall Street Journal editorial:

Democrats are deriding last night's House vote to repeal ObamaCare as “symbolic,” and it was, but that is not the same as meaningless. The stunning political reality is that a new entitlement that was supposed to be a landmark of liberal governance has been repudiated by a majority of one chamber of Congress only 10 months after it passed. This sort of thing never happens.

[...]

[S]uch spin can't overcome the reality of premium increases and other damage in the insurance market that consumers can see in their own paychecks and that will only grow. Recall that reform was sold as a way to control costs and increase consumer choice. But underlying medical costs continue to climb, carrying premiums aloft in tandem. Even a nonprofit insurer like Blue Shield of California, a reliable lobbyist for progressive causes, says it must raise rates by as much as 59%, in part to comply with ObamaCare's mandates. [Wall Street Journal, 1/20/11]

In Fact, Blue Shield Of California Said Rate Increases “Have Almost Nothing To Do With The Federal Health Reform Law.” From a January 6 Bloomberg report:

Nonprofit insurer Blue Shield of California submitted a proposal to raise rates on individual policyholders by as much as 59 percent beginning March 1.

The San Francisco-based company said the increase was necessary because of rising provider fees, greater use of medical services by its members, and “the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy,” Johnny Wong, a company spokesman, said today in an e-mail.

[...]

About 193,000 policyholders will see higher rates that will average about 30 percent, Blue Shield's Wong said. He couldn't cite a number for those who would face the 59 percent increase. Blue Shield of California has about 3.3 million members, he said.

The increases “have almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law,” and “reflect trends that were building long before health reform,” Wong said in the e-mail. [Bloomberg, 1/6/11]

WSJ's Own Poll Contradicts Suggestion That Most Americans Want Repeal

WSJ: Vote To Repeal “Showed Refreshing Respect” For The “American People.” From the Journal editorial:

Republicans across the country campaigned on repeal last year, and yesterday's vote showed refreshing respect for the often invoked, rarely consulted American people.

[...]

Various liberal sages chimed in with a prediction/hope that repeal will backfire on Republicans, usually based on outlier polls like those produced by the Kaiser Family Foundation. These are the same wise men who after Scott Brown's Massachusetts Senate upset a year ago importuned Democrats to pass the bill anyway. They claimed it would be a political winner, eventually, once voters were hooked up to subsidized coverage. [Wall Street Journal, 1/20/11]

WSJ's Own Poll Fails To Establish That Most Want Repeal. A January 13-17 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 46 percent of respondents “oppose repealing and eliminating this new health care law,” compared to 45 percent who favor repeal. The result was within the +/-3.1 percent margin of error. [Wall Street Journal, 1/19/11]

Other Polls Have Found That Public Does Not Support Repeal. While some polls have found that a plurality supports repeal, others have found that the public does not support repeal. These include:

• A January 13-16 Washington Post/ABC poll that found that only 18 percent of respondents favored repealing all of the health care reform law, compared to 45 percent who support the bill, 19 percent who want to repeal parts of the bill, and 17 who want to “wait and see before deciding.” [Washington Post, 1/16/11]
• A January 5-10 AP/GfK poll found that only 26 percent of respondents wanted to repeal the law completely, compared to 19 percent who wanted to leave it as is, 43 percent that wanted to change it so it does more, and 10 percent who wanted to change it so it does less. [AP-GfKPoll.com, 1/10/11]

WSJ Relies On Non-Random Sample Survey Of Doctors To Attack Health Care Reform

WSJ Cites Thomson Reuters Survey To Suggest That Doctors Oppose Health Care Reform Law. From the Journal editorial:

The law's central planning has also set off a wave of health-industry consolidation that is already reshaping medicine as providers try to shelter themselves from political risk. A Thompson [sic: Thomson] Reuters survey released this week found that 65% of physicians believe the quality of care will deteriorate over the next five years, with only 18% thinking it will improve. Republicans could have done better in yesterday's debate by focusing more on this deterioration in choice and quality, rather than so much on the (admittedly real) harm to jobs and the federal deficit. [Wall Street Journal, 1/20/11]

Thomson Reuters Survey Itself States That It Is “Not Sampled Randomly” And “The Cohort Of Respondent Could Represent Some Bias.” From the survey, which was conducted by Thomson Reuters for the health care industry consulting firm HCPlexus:

Limitations of the Survey

This survey was conducted through a fax-response methodology and was therefore not sampled randomly or through a representative matching process. Therefore we recognize that the cohort of respondents could represent some bias. For example, all respondents were physicians providing direct care of patients and did not include doctors in other roles, such as administration or research. Additionally, the cross section of primary providers and specialists who responded may differ somewhat from the prevalence rates expressed in national data, although the response base was determined to include physicians from all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, and statistically significant cohorts of most major specialties. [HCPlexus.com, accessed 1/20/11]