How the Boston Globe Cheats Its Readers about RomneyCare - Part II

Recently I gave a very egregious example of the lying and deceit practiced by the Boston Globe and the journalists it hires or strings when it comes to furthering its political causes.  The example had nothing to do with Massachusetts or health care or statistics but was so biased that it made it easy to explain the Globe's tactics. In fact it was so biased that the reporter had to go into the comments section and explain his or her spurious reason for deceiving the readers.

Most of the deception on RomneyCare is much less obvious and therefore much harder to spot. But the lead story in the Boston Globe on March 25 (might require subscription), which was all about Massachusetts and health care and statistics, was equally misleading and deceitful.  For example:

• The article said individual premiums went down 40% under RomneyCare. Individual premiums did not go down because of the individual mandate as this biased Globe reporter says but because the individual and small group markets were coincidentally merged at the same time as RomneyCare. This 40% claim has spread because the brilliant MIT economist Jonathan Gruber did not carefully read an AHIP study that says don't compare any state from one year to another year (because of the AHIP research methodology) and that specifically says don't put any stock in Massachusetts' results (because the markets are being merged).
• In addition, the biased Globe reporter completely ignores the fact that that drop in individual rates only affected 40,000 (0.5%) out of 6,500,000 of us anyways, was for only one year, the state estimates that the rates went down only 20% rather than 40% the Obamacare/Romneycare-profiteer Gruber claimed, and the individual and the small group rates have since skyrocketed up almost twice as fast as large group rates.

The article said people from NH "routinely" come to Methuen, MA near the NH border to use a hospital's ER. How often is "routinely" in the Methuen hospital ER.  How much is "11% of the hospital's bad debt?" The biased Globe reporter doesn't mention that the free care pool -- not the hospital -- pays for this anyway?  (And wouldn't passing some kind of law that reverts the cost to the New Hampshire state government be a better solution than ruining the Massachusetts health care system?)

The biased Globe reporter says 12,900 uninsured came from other states to Massachusetts ERs. Did they come to Massachusetts ERs because of RomneyCare as this biased author implies or simply because they live close to them?  After all, under Federal laws, they could stiff any ER in the country; they don't have to come to Massachusetts. But read the article carefully. That's not what the deceptive Globe reporter said: all he or she said was that 12,900 uninsured out of staters came to Massachusetts ERs. That does not mean that they all failed to pay their bills (certainly Adelle paid her bill at Mass General)

The article repeats the Obama administration deceit that seniors are saving a lot of money on prescription drugs because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Seniors are saving a lot of money on drugs because the Republicans passed (although the Democrats opposed) the 2003 Part D prescription drug plan. Before 2006, seniors had no drug coverage from Medicare. The fact that the pharmaceutical companies subsequently provided a discount for those whose drug costs exceed about $3000 this year (the top of the so-called initial phase period will rise each year over time, meaning fewer and fewer seniors will get the discount) is good news for seniors. But that discount was a voluntary decision by the manufacturers for which they in turn got other benefits.

-- Dennis Byron