Media Doesn't Want Accurate ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers

As I write this Chuck Todd is using his MSNBC show "The Daily Rundown" to spread the fabricated myth that 2.2 million Americans "enrolled" in ObamaCare. This isn't true and if Todd doesn't know it isn't true he is not a tenth as smart as I think he is. Sadly, Todd's willingness to spread government propaganda without qualification is not unique among a media that obviously don't want to push for the release of accurate ObamaCare enrollment numbers.

You are not "enrolled" in ObamaCare or any insurance plan until you have paid your first month's premium. Scattered reports from various insurance companies tell us that anywhere from 95% to 50% of those the White House are counting as enrolled have not paid and therefore are not really enrolled.
The numbers the White House and its mouthpiece media are using do not fall under the accepted or standard definition of "enrollee." We are being told 2.2 million enrolled when the truth is that 2.2 million only went as far as to place a health plan in their shopping cart. How many of those 2.2 million are truly enrolled is a number the White House isn't releasing and the media are not publicly pressuring them to release.
If the mainstream media wanted the true enrollment figure, they could easily do what they always do when they want something: coordinate a narrative throughout every media outlet that pressures the administration to release the numbers and criticizes them for not doing so.
Instead, senior White House correspondents like Chuck Todd are, without qualification, repeating the number as though it's an accurate number.
But why would we expect the media to push for a truth that might hurt President Obama's signature piece of legislation, and one the media championed and refused for three years to vet for fear it might derail the entire program?
This kind of sloppy reporting and parroting of Obama talking points has defined our media since the day Barack Obama became a national figure.


Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC       

Most ObamaCare enrollees already had health plans, report says

The majority of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for health insurance under ObamaCare through the end of December were already enrolled in employer-sponsored plans or had previously bought their own coverage, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Early data from insurers, brokers and consultants suggest that the marketplaces are popular with consumers who were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about a law intended to expand coverage to millions of healthy, uninsured Americans to help offset costs.
A survey by management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found that only 11 percent of consumers who purchased new coverage under ObamaCare were previously uninsured. The survey was based on a sampling of 4,563 consumers between November and January, according to The Wall Street Journal.
HealthMarkets Inc., an insurance agency that signed up about 7,500 people in exchange plans, reported that 65 of its enrollees had prior coverage, the report said. Fifteen percent of enrollees had their individual plans canceled, and 40 percent switched over from previous individual plans.
"One of the intents of the law was to address the uninsured problem in our country," David M. Cordani, chief executive of insurer Cigna told the newspaper. Some insurers said the early data on newly insured consumers is falling short of expectations.
Insurers in Michigan expected 400,000 of the state's 1.2 million uninsured people to join private plans this year, according to an analysis provided Michigan-based Priority Health. As of the end of December, only 76,000 people had signed up, many of whom were previously covered, according to the report. 
"I don't know we're growing the number of people with insurance here, so much as we're just adding complexity," Geoff Bartsh, vice president for policy at Minneapolis-based Medica Health Plans told the Journal. 
Federal health officials told the newspaper they don't yet know the number of people who have signed up for coverage through the exchanges who had insurance when they enrolled. Consumers have until the end of March 31 to purchase plans under ObamaCare.
"We are in the middle of a sustained six-month open-enrollment period, and we have seen a strong interest in the product overall across the range of demographics so far," said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "We are ramping up outreach activities so that more Americans learn how they can now benefit from affordable health insurance."
Overall, adults ages 55-64 were the most heavily represented in the signups, accounting for 33 percent of the total. Nationwide, the premiums paid by people in that demographic don't fully cover their medical expenses. Some are in the waiting room for Medicare; that coverage starts at age 65.
Young adults from 18 to 34 are only 24 percent of total enrollment, the Obama administration said Monday in its first signup figures broken down for age, gender and other details. Enrolling young and healthy people is important because they generally pay more into the system than they take out, subsidizing older adults.

Bloggers have First Amendment protections, federal court rules

  A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial in a defamation lawsuit brought by an Oregon bankruptcy trustee against a Montana blogger who wrote online that the court-appointed trustee criminally mishandled a bankruptcy case.
The appeals court ruled that the trustee was not a public figure, which could have invoked an even higher standard of showing the writer acted with malice, but the issue was of public concern, so the negligence standard applied.
Gregg Leslie of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said the ruling affirms what many have long argued: Standards set by a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., apply to everyone, not just journalists.
"It's not a special right to the news media," he said. "So it's a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others."
Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., now living in Port Townshend, Wash., was sued for defamation by Bend attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC, after she made posts on several websites she created accusing them of fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities. The appeals court noted Padrick and Obsidian were hired by Summit Accommodators to advise them before filing for bankruptcy, and that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court later appointed Padrick trustee in the Chapter 11 case. The court added that Summit had defrauded investors in its real estate operations through a Ponzi scheme.
A jury in 2011 had awarded Padrick and Obsidian $2.5 million.
"Because Cox's blog post addressed a matter of public concern, even assuming that Gertz is limited to such speech, the district court should have instructed the jury that it could not find Cox liable for defamation unless it found that she acted negligently," judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote. "We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages."
The appeals court upheld rulings by the District Court that other posts by Cox were constitutionally protected opinion.
Though Cox acted as her own attorney, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who had written an article on the issue, learned of her case and offered to represent her in an appeal. Volokh said such cases usually end up settled without trial, and it was rare for one to reach the federal appeals court level.
"It makes clear that bloggers have the same First Amendment rights as professional journalists," he said. "There had been similar precedents before concerning advocacy groups, other writers and book authors. This follows a fairly well established chain of precedents. I believe it is the first federal appeals court level ruling that applies to bloggers."
An attorney for Padrick said in an email that while they were disappointed in the ruling, they noted the court found "there was no dispute that the statements were false and defamatory."
"Ms. Cox's false and defamatory statements have caused substantial damage to our clients, and we are evaluating our options with respect to the court's decision," wrote Steven M. Wilker.