Will Obamacare Destroy Private Insurance?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

I haven’t been blogging about the great McKinsey Obamacare study flap, but in a nutshell, McKinsey conducted a survey of employers and concluded that 30% of all companies would stop providing health coverage once Obamacare kicked in in 2014. Conservatives immediately sounded the alarm, but McKinsey refused to explain their methodology or divulge anything about either the questions they asked or how they “educated” respondents before getting their answers.

Under considerable pressure, McKinsey finally released a brief summary of their methodology along with a weasely clarification that their report wasn’t meant to be a prediction and had only said that 30% of companies “might” stop providing health insurance, not “would.” Whatever. It was too late: the 30% estimate had long since become a piece of conservative lore about the dire effects of Obamacare.

But how likely is it to be true? No one can say for sure, but the reason the McKinsey study provoked so much outrage — aside from the peculiar fact that they refused to explain how the study was conducted — is that it was light years away from every other estimate that had been done. In fact, a team of health economists had just recently done a (very well documented) simulation of the effects of Obamacare and came to a very different conclusion: the decrease in private insurance rates would be on the order of 3%, over two decades, not 30% over two years. They looked at the likely effect of three things: (1) the expansion of Medicaid, (2) the creation of subsidized insurance via exchanges, and (3) the Cadillac tax. The chart on the right, kindly sent to me by Steve Pizer, one of the authors of the study, summarizes the results of their simulation. The number of uninsured goes down to nearly zero, the number of publicly insured goes up to about 15%, and the number of people covered by private insurance declines only a smidgen.

Is this estimate correct? Who knows. But it’s carefully done and the methodology is open to all for criticism. All things considered, it’s probably way more likely to be close to the mark than McKinsey’s study. You probably don’t have to worry much about your employer suddenly deciding to end your healthcare coverage when Obamacare starts up for real in 2014.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate