posted October 28, 2014 11:57 AM            

'After a year fully in place," the Times story begins, "the Affordable Care Act has largely succeeded in delivering on President Obama's main promises." So case closed, right? After all, a team of New York Times "reporters and data researchers" came to that conclusion.

In a word, no. To claim success, the Times gets things wrong or ignores the law's most glaring failures.

The uninsured rate has gone down? It's true that several private surveys show a decline in the uninsured rate this year. But how much of this is due to ObamaCare and how much is due to the fact that millions of people have found work since early 2013?

The Times doesn't even try to answer that question, even though the long-term census survey shows a connection between job growth and uninsured rates.

Meanwhile, most of those who did gain coverage didn't get it from a private insurance company. They went on Medicaid. That isn't what Obama or anyone else pushing ObamaCare had promised.

More affordable? The Times claims that ObamaCare has made insurance affordable for many, "but not for all." Well, if you spend $1 trillion in subsidies, then yes, some are bound to get a break.

But ask anyone who's been forced to buy an ObamaCare plan after his old insurance was canceled, and he will probably laugh at the Times' conclusion.

Even in California, which wholeheartedly embraced ObamaCare, the state's insurance commissioner found that average premiums for those who had coverage before ObamaCare rocketed 22% to 88%.

In any case, the law came nowhere near fulfilling Obama's promise of a $2,500 cut in premiums for the average family.

Improving the nation's health? There's simply no way to draw any conclusions about that so early in the game. What you can say is that having insurance doesn't equal improved health.

A comprehensive study published in the New England Journal of Medicine made that abundantly clear. It found that people on Medicaid were no better off healthwise than the uninsured.

A working ObamaCare exchange? The fact that the federal exchange is still unfinished despite spending more than $2 billion over several years would constitute an epic failure in any private business. That's not true, unfortunately, in big government.

The Times also concludes that the health care industry is better off today than it was before ObamaCare was passed. But since when was that a priority of Democrats, who sold the law by demonizing insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and drug companies?

What's more, the Times simply ignores other "main promises" that have unquestionably failed. Anyone remember Obama's oft-repeated "keep your plan" promise? Or the one about how it wouldn't add a dime to the federal deficit?

A new Senate report concludes the same thing that IBD did back in July 2013 — that ObamaCare will add red ink in its first 10 years, thanks to lower-than-expected revenues, unrealistic budget cuts and various "fixes" since it was passed.

And what about the promise that ObamaCare wouldn't affect those who get coverage at work? Even the Times has occasionally reported on the disruptions the law is causing — companies dropping coverage, cutting hours, putting off hires. ObamaCare architect Ezekiel Emanuel predicts it will destroy the employer market altogether.

posted October 28, 2014 12:38 PM            

Meanwhile, most of those who did gain coverage didn't get it from a private insurance company. They went on Medicaid. That isn't what Obama or anyone else pushing ObamaCare had promised

Having your cake and eating it too? I thought the employment numbers were a crock according to the Antis...

and then we go on to say that most people only got Medicaid anyway and that's counter to the original intent

Which I thought was to cover people of all income brackets, so I fail to see the fail here. Medicaid is the Public Option that didn't officially happen. Even Republicans, governors and others, admit that the expansion of Medicaid is helping an awful lot of people and should stay even if Obamacare goes.