The truth behind ObamaCare numbers |
Featured Commentary

The truth behind ObamaCare numbers

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised that his health reform plan would “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family.” So it’s not surprising that many people are dismayed by the rising costs under the health reform law he signed.

But the president and lawmakers who created ObamaCare were always more focused on increasing coverage than on reducing costs. That’s why two of the law’s central provisions were expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating new government-run exchanges offering subsidized health plans.

So, how much did ObamaCare increase health insurance coverage?

The latest enrollment data for Medicaid and private plans show that the number of Americans with coverage increased by 8.5 million during the first half of 2014. However, 6.1 million of that number were new Medicaid enrollees. In other words, 71 percent of the total coverage gain came from ObamaCare expanding Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.

Digging further into the private market data, we find that the number of people covered by individual-market plans increased by 6.2 million but that the number of those with employer-group coverage declined by 3.8 million. Thus, the drop in employment-based coverage offset 61 percent of the growth in individual-market coverage, resulting in a net increase in private coverage of only about 2.4 million.

Half the states had ObamaCare Medicaid expansion in effect during the first six months of 2014, and those states accounted for 94 percent of the 6.1 million individuals added to the Medicaid rolls during the period. States that did not adopt the expansion collectively added only 355,000 people to Medicaid, reflecting modest growth in the populations traditionally covered by Medicaid — poor children, low-income pregnant women and disabled adults.

Of those who obtained coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges, no more than 2.4 million were previously uninsured. The rest of the ObamaCare exchange enrollments appear to have resulted from a substitution effect — meaning enrollment in new exchange plans by people who previously had coverage through either an individual-market or employer-group plan.

These data tell us two basic things about ObamaCare’s performance. First, when it comes to covering the uninsured, ObamaCare is so far mainly an expansion of Medicaid. Second, the new government exchanges didn’t enroll many people who were previously uninsured.

The problem with ObamaCare mainly being a Medicaid expansion is that the new Medicaid enrollees are not the vulnerable poor the program was designed to serve. Rather, they are able-bodied, working-age adults who have low incomes because they are either unemployed or under-employed.

Furthermore, 82 percent of the adults who qualify for the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion don’t even have dependent children. Giving those individuals Medicaid doesn’t provide them with what they need most: gainful employment. Indeed, as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, expanding Medicaid to that population will discourage many of them from taking a job or working more hours if doing so means losing Medicaid coverage.

With respect to the new exchanges, the majority of enrollees apparently were people who already had coverage. It is also likely that many of them had to get new coverage because ObamaCare forced their insurer or employer to discontinue their old plan.

That’s not exactly “if you like your plan, you can keep it.”

Ed Haislmaier is a senior research fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.