Debunking the Propaganda Campaign to Kill Obamacare
Photo Credit: Photo by Shutterstock
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Forget the sexist Koch brothers-funded ad of a creepy-looking Uncle Sam about to conduct a pelvic exam as a way to convince college students not to sign up for Obamacare. A recent article in Forbes trumpeting a study by the right-wing Manhattan Institute claiming that Obamacare will be more costly than current health insurance plans is a more intentionally misleading attack on Obamacare.
The article’s big lie is a sin of intentional journalistic omission. Obamacare hopes to extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. But more than 25 million people will not pay the full premium price. That’s because the government will pay insurance companies as much as two-thirds of the policy’s cost via federal subsidies. For 2014, $16 billion has been set aside for those discounts, to be doled out based on incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
In 2013, that includes individuals making $11,490 to $46,000, couples earning between $19,530 and $78,120, and families of four making $23,550 to $94,200.
How does Forbes handle omitting that not-so-minor detail? Its article states, “Subsidies only protect some people. Middle-class Americans face the double-whammy of higher insurance premiums, and higher taxes to pay for other people’s subsidies.”
The “some” in that sentence are 78 percent of Obamacare’s likely recipients, or 25.7 million people, a study by the advocacy group Families USA found.
This is how propaganda works. You don’t state all the facts. You select bits and build an argument. Forbes’ editors should know better—especially since the publication that bills itself as a capitalist’s tool is whacking a law with gigantic profits for its insurance industry friends.
On Thursday, Bloomberg.com reported that anti-Obamacare forces have so far outspent the pro-Obamacare side five-to-one, with its advertising approaching $500 million. But the tide may be turning in the Obamacare propaganda war. Bloomberg’s source, Kantar Media, which tracks ad buys and trends, said the pro-Obamacare side would spend $500 million as the law is rolled out this fall and next year. That’s part of the $3.7 billion given to states to create and promote their program. And that does not count free media coverage, such as the president’s recent healthcare speeches.
Until now, the national media has not reported on the subsidies. But that is also changing. Take this Washington Post report profiling “how eight lives would be affected by the health law.” Not everyone who wants Obamacare can get it, the Post’s first example revealed. That’s because the Supreme Court ruled states do not have to enroll people earning wages under the federal poverty level in state-run Medicaid programs. Republican-run Virginia is one of the states deciding not to help its poor people get health plans. Republican majorities in red states will prevent 8 million poor from getting help, the Post said, citing an Urban Institute study.
But other individuals profiled by the Post show how the subsidies work. A single musician making $25,000 a year looking at the cheapest plan, costing $136 a month, will get a $54 federal subsidy. That brings its cost to $82 a month. The man profiled has Crohns disease, a serious intestinal disability, and told the Post he would welcome coverage. A middle-aged single mother of three, who has a heart condition, could get a $350 monthly subsidy for a family plan based on a $30,000 income, the Post said. Obamacare offers four levels of coverage. The most barebones and cheapest plan would cost her nothing. A slightly better plan, lowering her deductible, would cost her $104 a month.