My parents are elderly, and they've lost their doctor twice now. Their doctor of 20 years retired early when ObamaCare became law, and then his business partner, whom they moved to, is retiring early now because it didn't get repealed. Not only that, but Dupont, the company that provided their health insurance, is calling them and tens of thousands of other Dupont retirees, to meetings around the country to explain why they can't keep offering them the health care they had.
What is it about being elderly that means they don't need to be counted?
Also, my sister and her husband employ a few hundred people. The employees are paid more than other workers for the work they do and have had a good health care package. Due to ObamaCare, they had to downscale the package they offer (doubling copays and other costs for the workers) just to only pay 10% more than the year before, rather than 30% more. This was after two years of consistent increases in costs due to ObamaCare.
I don't know if those numbers add up to 20 million nationally, but with what I see in my own FAMILY makes me fully expect that number could be too LOW.
He also rightly pointed out that over 20 million Americans have already lost their doctors or had their plans scaled back from ObamaCare.
Just did some googling, nothing really backing that up- just quoting Romney's speech, and saying that the numbers "come from the Congressional Budget Office" and left it at that. I found a Politifact article going into some more depth, though:
Following the Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, Mitt Romney claimed in a speech that "Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep."
When we checked with the Romney campaign, a spokesman confirmed that the source of Romney’s claim was a March 2012 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. In March 2012, we checked a similar statement by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.
While PolitiFact does not put predictions to the Truth
Meter, we do fact-check whether politicians or pundits accurately portray the predictions made by others. So that’s what we’ll do here.
Cherry-picking the CBO report
The CBO study was undertaken to estimate the impact of the health care law on the number of people obtaining health care coverage from their employer. CBO came up with a "baseline" estimate -- its best guess. CBO settled on a range of 3 million to 5 million fewer non-elderly people obtaining coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case before the law was passed. Including those with individually purchased policies means a decline of an additional 1 million to 3 million Americans.
That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s quite a bit lower than 20 million. So where did 20 million come from?
CBO supplemented its "baseline" estimate with four alternative, and wildly divergent, estimates. One resulted in a net gain of 3 million people with employer-sponsored insurance. The other scenarios resulted in a decline of 10 million, a decline of 12 million, and -- here it is -- a decline of 20 million.
A number of other estimates by groups other than CBO have tracked with CBO’s baseline estimate, rather than with Romney’s figure. A study by the Urban Institute projected a decline of about 500,000 people. The Lewin Group predicted a decline of about 3 million people. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actuary pegged the number at about 1 million fewer people. And the RAND Corp. projected that about 4 million more individuals would be covered by employment-based coverage by 2016.
So the 20 million number Romney cited does come from CBO, and he hedged by saying "up to." But it’s the most extreme outcome of the five presented, and it’s not the primary estimate.
Some who "lose" coverage will do so because they find better options
Even beyond the cherry-picking, Romney is wrong to say that 20 million Americans will lose the insurance "that they like and they want to keep."
According to CBO’s "baseline" estimates, 3 million people will spurn their employer’s offer of insurance and turn instead to another source, such as the health insurance "exchanges" created under the Obama health care law. In many cases, they will do this because they consider the employer’s offering to be unaffordable or lacking too many features they need. For these people, it’s a stretch to say they will "lose" coverage that they "like," since they are leaving of their own volition for something that suits them better.
Romney also ignores 9 million people who wouldn’t have had an employer plan before the Obama law, but who will get employer coverage after passage of the law, perhaps because of the law’s mix of subsidies and penalties for employers.
Even people who lose employer insurance involuntarily won’t, for the most part, be left without insurance options. They should have access to coverage on the exchanges, perhaps with subsidies. And depending on their income level, they may have access to Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan, which were expanded as part of the law.
Indeed, health care experts say that a big reason why companies may drop coverage is specifically because their employees will have a fallback option on the exchanges that offers guaranteed, subsidized coverage.
It’s also important to remember the big picture. CBO projects that, overall, the number of uninsured Americans will drop by 29 million to 31 million due to the law.
Romney acts as if no one ever loses coverage today
As we have previously noted, many Americans lose their current health plan for reasons that have nothing to do with the new law, though figuring out exactly how many is surprisingly tricky.
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that, on average, slightly more than 3 percent of employees leave their jobs in any given month. But you don’t have to change jobs to see your plan change. Your employer may change insurance carriers, or the insurance carrier may unilaterally modify the terms of your plan.
How common is this? The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that in 2007, just over 14 percent of the entire U.S. population "switched" health insurance. However, this underestimates the rate of switching, because the study included people of all ages (including those covered by Medicare, who rarely switch) and because it doesn’t count a switch from one plan to the other within the same insurance company.
It’s also common for employers and their insurance carriers to unilaterally change their plans. Mercer, a private consulting firm, found that in each of the years from 2005 to 2008, roughly a quarter of companies said they made changes to their plans that would result in employees paying a greater share of the cost. In 2009 and 2010, it rose to one-third.
All told, this churn -- which, to reiterate, is happening because of forces beyond the Obama health care law -- almost certainly dwarfs the scale of the changes Romney is talking about.
Even Romney’s cherry-picked number of 20 million amounts to 7 percent of the 270 million non-elderly people in the U.S. CBO’s preferred figure represents an even smaller share -- 1 percent to 2 percent.
But the rate of plan-changing is almost certainly much higher if you add up the workers who lose coverage entirely; who change jobs (voluntarily or involuntarily); who work for companies that either change insurance carriers or adjust plan terms significantly; or whose employer’s insurance carrier is merged or bought out.
Why does this matter? Because knowing that many workers every year are already required to change plans -- even if they like them -- would provide a different impression of the statistics that Romney cites.
Our ruling:
Romney said that "Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep." That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who "like" their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. Romney also ignores that under the status quo, many more people today "lose" coverage than even the highest, cherry-picked CBO estimate. We rate his statement False.
What is it about being elderly that means they don't need to be counted?
Also, my sister and her husband employ a few hundred people. The employees are paid more than other workers for the work they do and have had a good health care package. Due to ObamaCare, they had to downscale the package they offer (doubling copays and other costs for the workers) just to only pay 10% more than the year before, rather than 30% more. This was after two years of consistent increases in costs due to ObamaCare.
I don't know if those numbers add up to 20 million nationally, but with what I see in my own FAMILY makes me fully expect that number could be too LOW.
He also rightly pointed out that over 20 million Americans have already lost their doctors or had their plans scaled back from ObamaCare.
Just did some googling, nothing really backing that up- just quoting Romney's speech, and saying that the numbers "come from the Congressional Budget Office" and left it at that. I found a Politifact article going into some more depth, though:
Following the Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, Mitt Romney claimed in a speech that "Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep."
When we checked with the Romney campaign, a spokesman confirmed that the source of Romney’s claim was a March 2012 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. In March 2012, we checked a similar statement by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.
While PolitiFact does not put predictions to the Truth

Cherry-picking the CBO report
The CBO study was undertaken to estimate the impact of the health care law on the number of people obtaining health care coverage from their employer. CBO came up with a "baseline" estimate -- its best guess. CBO settled on a range of 3 million to 5 million fewer non-elderly people obtaining coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case before the law was passed. Including those with individually purchased policies means a decline of an additional 1 million to 3 million Americans.
That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s quite a bit lower than 20 million. So where did 20 million come from?
CBO supplemented its "baseline" estimate with four alternative, and wildly divergent, estimates. One resulted in a net gain of 3 million people with employer-sponsored insurance. The other scenarios resulted in a decline of 10 million, a decline of 12 million, and -- here it is -- a decline of 20 million.
A number of other estimates by groups other than CBO have tracked with CBO’s baseline estimate, rather than with Romney’s figure. A study by the Urban Institute projected a decline of about 500,000 people. The Lewin Group predicted a decline of about 3 million people. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actuary pegged the number at about 1 million fewer people. And the RAND Corp. projected that about 4 million more individuals would be covered by employment-based coverage by 2016.
So the 20 million number Romney cited does come from CBO, and he hedged by saying "up to." But it’s the most extreme outcome of the five presented, and it’s not the primary estimate.
Some who "lose" coverage will do so because they find better options
Even beyond the cherry-picking, Romney is wrong to say that 20 million Americans will lose the insurance "that they like and they want to keep."
According to CBO’s "baseline" estimates, 3 million people will spurn their employer’s offer of insurance and turn instead to another source, such as the health insurance "exchanges" created under the Obama health care law. In many cases, they will do this because they consider the employer’s offering to be unaffordable or lacking too many features they need. For these people, it’s a stretch to say they will "lose" coverage that they "like," since they are leaving of their own volition for something that suits them better.
Romney also ignores 9 million people who wouldn’t have had an employer plan before the Obama law, but who will get employer coverage after passage of the law, perhaps because of the law’s mix of subsidies and penalties for employers.
Even people who lose employer insurance involuntarily won’t, for the most part, be left without insurance options. They should have access to coverage on the exchanges, perhaps with subsidies. And depending on their income level, they may have access to Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan, which were expanded as part of the law.
Indeed, health care experts say that a big reason why companies may drop coverage is specifically because their employees will have a fallback option on the exchanges that offers guaranteed, subsidized coverage.
It’s also important to remember the big picture. CBO projects that, overall, the number of uninsured Americans will drop by 29 million to 31 million due to the law.
Romney acts as if no one ever loses coverage today
As we have previously noted, many Americans lose their current health plan for reasons that have nothing to do with the new law, though figuring out exactly how many is surprisingly tricky.
Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that, on average, slightly more than 3 percent of employees leave their jobs in any given month. But you don’t have to change jobs to see your plan change. Your employer may change insurance carriers, or the insurance carrier may unilaterally modify the terms of your plan.
How common is this? The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that in 2007, just over 14 percent of the entire U.S. population "switched" health insurance. However, this underestimates the rate of switching, because the study included people of all ages (including those covered by Medicare, who rarely switch) and because it doesn’t count a switch from one plan to the other within the same insurance company.
It’s also common for employers and their insurance carriers to unilaterally change their plans. Mercer, a private consulting firm, found that in each of the years from 2005 to 2008, roughly a quarter of companies said they made changes to their plans that would result in employees paying a greater share of the cost. In 2009 and 2010, it rose to one-third.
All told, this churn -- which, to reiterate, is happening because of forces beyond the Obama health care law -- almost certainly dwarfs the scale of the changes Romney is talking about.
Even Romney’s cherry-picked number of 20 million amounts to 7 percent of the 270 million non-elderly people in the U.S. CBO’s preferred figure represents an even smaller share -- 1 percent to 2 percent.
But the rate of plan-changing is almost certainly much higher if you add up the workers who lose coverage entirely; who change jobs (voluntarily or involuntarily); who work for companies that either change insurance carriers or adjust plan terms significantly; or whose employer’s insurance carrier is merged or bought out.
Why does this matter? Because knowing that many workers every year are already required to change plans -- even if they like them -- would provide a different impression of the statistics that Romney cites.
Our ruling:
Romney said that "Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep." That number is cherry-picked, and he’s wrong to describe it as only including people who "like" their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options. Romney also ignores that under the status quo, many more people today "lose" coverage than even the highest, cherry-picked CBO estimate. We rate his statement False.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
Romney CRUSHES Obama in First Debate - Leads Swing States by 4%
04/10/2012 05:32:32 AM
- 1121 Views
So, is that from a "corrected", "non-skewed" poll?
04/10/2012 05:51:58 AM
- 631 Views

Wow, you suck at Googling!
04/10/2012 01:14:22 PM
- 829 Views

Which poll at your link shows anything but Obama leading every swing state but NC?
04/10/2012 05:41:31 PM
- 742 Views
No, you just apparently suck at math
04/10/2012 07:17:20 PM
- 593 Views

I know you are sad, but your Messiah may still win.....you never know!
04/10/2012 07:23:16 PM
- 660 Views
your mental instability and misperception of reality are worrisome -- please seek professional help
04/10/2012 07:54:45 PM
- 748 Views
I'm more of a syndicalist, sorry
04/10/2012 08:43:48 PM
- 692 Views
Ooh, would you mind talking more about syndicalism?
04/10/2012 11:28:40 PM
- 598 Views
Sure, but I'm no doctrainaire on this
05/10/2012 01:13:19 AM
- 766 Views
Thank you!
Reading the wikipedia entry was making my eyes glaze over. But I can try again now. *NM*
05/10/2012 02:14:50 PM
- 523 Views

It really should be mandatory for everyone to read factcheck.org after every debate. *NM*
04/10/2012 09:38:24 AM
- 369 Views
Seriously. The number of times I squinted and thought, "Wait, that doesn't sound quite right"
04/10/2012 02:01:12 PM
- 721 Views
Romney addressed that head-on
04/10/2012 02:13:44 PM
- 615 Views
Yeah, that "20 million" comment raised my eyebrows.
04/10/2012 04:15:49 PM
- 976 Views
Why are you not counting the elderly?
04/10/2012 07:33:28 PM
- 867 Views
Yeah, but it ain't, and it was Obamas job to make that unnecessary.
04/10/2012 03:26:50 PM
- 728 Views
Obama - Lost and Bewildered without Teleprompter.....funny stuff!
04/10/2012 01:10:40 PM
- 646 Views
Which part of Romneys socialism was your favorite?
04/10/2012 03:38:17 PM
- 749 Views
I keep thinking that was what killed Obama.
04/10/2012 04:45:02 PM
- 669 Views
I suspected that was a lot of it, yeah, but he should have been prepared for the Etch-a-Sketch.
04/10/2012 05:25:35 PM
- 653 Views
living in a bubble where everyone agreed on those things and is what killed him
04/10/2012 05:59:29 PM
- 699 Views
why do you silly lefites keep acting like Romney is the first guy to move to the center?
04/10/2012 05:46:13 PM
- 859 Views
The primary was six months ago, and endorsing every aspect of limited welfare states is not centrist
04/10/2012 06:00:56 PM
- 683 Views
can you support that insane argument? *NM*
05/10/2012 01:10:11 PM
- 248 Views
Romney explicitly endorsed regulations, soaking the rich, entitlements and public education funding.
05/10/2012 02:25:49 PM
- 700 Views
you could have just said no
05/10/2012 05:25:44 PM
- 661 Views
Since when was Romney (or any Republican since TRs day) for more regulation or hiring more teachers?
06/10/2012 01:33:53 PM
- 728 Views
Well Bush was pushing for more banking regulations but Barney Franks blocked him
07/10/2012 03:52:50 PM
- 821 Views
A2000, your message should read:
04/10/2012 03:42:18 PM
- 669 Views
I consider the margin of error implied.
04/10/2012 05:49:50 PM
- 573 Views
Unfortunately statistics does not support that.
04/10/2012 06:11:56 PM
- 687 Views
Of course they do; the law of averages supports that.
04/10/2012 06:46:27 PM
- 718 Views
Poll numbers aren't random so even if the law of averages could be applied to a small data set...
04/10/2012 07:05:49 PM
- 597 Views
If not random, they are indicative (if not necessary conclusive,) and the data set is large enough.
04/10/2012 08:55:24 PM
- 587 Views
Let me rephrase: the law of averages is a belief. You are basing your conclusion on a belief.
04/10/2012 09:23:50 PM
- 661 Views
I have never used the Law of Averages to mean anything except the (proven) Law of Large Numbers.
05/10/2012 09:22:56 AM
- 774 Views
I'm pretty sure that 136 is not a large number. *NM*
05/10/2012 12:20:35 PM
- 394 Views
That is a matter of opinion, but for a binary event I think it huge.
05/10/2012 12:42:24 PM
- 698 Views
Without additional data, the default would be that the coin is fair. Since...
05/10/2012 05:20:21 PM
- 628 Views
After 136 trials the DEFAULT assumption no longer applies in the face of ample hard data.
06/10/2012 04:02:51 PM
- 755 Views
I did the same experiment I suggested for you.
06/10/2012 04:45:28 PM
- 601 Views
Still not a 3:1 ratio.
06/10/2012 06:09:00 PM
- 837 Views
Let me try and put it a slightly different way.
06/10/2012 08:12:35 PM
- 703 Views
The more lopsided/large the trial, the more LIKELY the coin is unfair;weight is the only way to KNOW
07/10/2012 12:09:27 PM
- 848 Views
You're completely missing the point.
07/10/2012 03:34:29 PM
- 701 Views
But 100 polls isn't analogous to 100 coin flips. Each of thousands of individuals is a coin flip.
07/10/2012 11:05:13 PM
- 686 Views
that is why you can't base things on just one poll
05/10/2012 01:27:18 AM
- 774 Views
You are making the same mistake Joel is making. You should read our discussion. *NM*
05/10/2012 01:50:01 AM
- 449 Views
there is a difference between statistical errors and model or method errors
05/10/2012 03:28:38 AM
- 658 Views
There is a difference between the law of averages and the law of large numbers.
05/10/2012 04:45:00 AM
- 854 Views
you left out part of that wiki quote you pasted
05/10/2012 05:30:52 AM
- 799 Views
You still haven't justified the application of the law of large numbers.
05/10/2012 12:24:51 PM
- 552 Views
I suggest you take some time to understand what I wrote and get back to me
05/10/2012 01:12:03 PM
- 583 Views
I obviously must have missed where you justified the use of the law of large numbers.
05/10/2012 04:43:51 PM
- 633 Views
WellI did that twice and I am waiting for you to refute what I said *NM*
05/10/2012 05:28:18 PM
- 431 Views
Since you are unwilling to be helpful...
05/10/2012 05:50:47 PM
- 742 Views
The law is a trend throughout, not a pass/fail based on if the number of polls is "large enough"
06/10/2012 03:26:33 PM
- 728 Views
I'm not saying that the law of large numbers doesn't make the margin of error less when...
06/10/2012 04:55:16 PM
- 609 Views
decades of polling history say you are wrong
07/10/2012 04:08:45 PM
- 894 Views
Stating that, "decades of polling history say you are wrong" doesn't prove your point.
07/10/2012 05:35:57 PM
- 577 Views
you are either ignoring what I am saying or you are mentally unable to understand it so I am done
07/10/2012 06:11:22 PM
- 535 Views
As you wish. I'm starting to get the same feeling from you as well. So whatever. But before you go..
07/10/2012 07:20:17 PM
- 687 Views
can wait for Ryan vs Bozo the VP
04/10/2012 06:07:30 PM
- 543 Views
If Biden performs as expected...
04/10/2012 07:46:16 PM
- 691 Views
your take on obama's foreign policy debate performance does not seem like reality
04/10/2012 08:00:51 PM
- 630 Views
I never would have thought Romney could lay such a beatdown on Obama as I saw last night.
04/10/2012 08:55:46 PM
- 702 Views
we saw the anti-romney last night. i doubt obama is going to be so flat-footed against him next time
04/10/2012 10:35:21 PM
- 628 Views
by that you mean he isn't the Romney the left tried to pretend he was and now they are mad
05/10/2012 12:53:00 AM
- 737 Views
right.... that whole 47% thing is a totally moderate position for a politician to take...
*NM*
05/10/2012 04:32:25 AM
- 358 Views

about as moderate as thinking the government didn't help New Orleans because it has a lot of blacks
05/10/2012 04:51:15 AM
- 652 Views
if you only have obama's comments from LAST election in 2008 then you have nothing
05/10/2012 03:38:07 PM
- 587 Views
who would you consider our number one geopolitical foe?
04/10/2012 10:12:53 PM
- 709 Views
China is far more dangerous. *NM*
05/10/2012 07:23:06 AM
- 305 Views
Whoa, was not expecting that point of agreement.
05/10/2012 12:35:35 PM
- 739 Views
they may be more dangerous but that doesn't that doesn't automatically make them first
05/10/2012 01:09:30 PM
- 711 Views
name two foreign policy decisions russia has blocked since 2008 *NM*
05/10/2012 03:41:15 PM
- 338 Views
It's generally both of them, really, isn't it?
05/10/2012 10:03:39 PM
- 586 Views
Agreed; much of it is that both China and Russia profit handsomely from nuclear proliferation.
06/10/2012 01:55:21 PM
- 712 Views
They both block us in the Middle East but Russia blocks us in Europe o a much larger degree
07/10/2012 04:22:40 PM
- 639 Views
WOW - Even the liberal CNN Poll confirms Romney's crushing victory.
04/10/2012 07:27:28 PM
- 738 Views
I watched it now. A few thoughts (albeit rather late):
05/10/2012 09:46:02 PM
- 772 Views
you are missing a key point
07/10/2012 04:34:17 PM
- 679 Views
Am I missing that point? I thought I said clearly enough that I thought Romney was better. *NM*
07/10/2012 08:47:42 PM
- 413 Views