Since its passage, and in a way that is unlike any policy issue in modern American history, the press have rallied to the defense of Obamacare. From day one, there has been almost no light between the average liberal activist and average health care reporter.
Or the average "fact-checker," for that matter. "Fact-checking" has evolved from an occasionally useful medium to an exercise in revisionism and diversion. Take theWashington Postwriter Glenn Kessler's recent article titled "President Trump's Mangled 'Facts' About Obamacare." Those who read the headline might assume it's just Trump doing what Trump does most of the time. Yet it turns out that all these supposedly "mangled" contentions about Obamacare are, at the very least, debatable assertions.
Kessler, for example, doesn't approve of Trump stating: "Americans were told that premiums would go down by $2,500 per year. And instead, their premiums went up to levels that nobody thought even possible." Other than the hyperbole ("nobody thought even possible") tacked on, this statement is substantively true.
The ostensive debunking of the "premiums are soaring" claim is really just a confirmation that premiums have indeed risen. Sure, Kessler blames the vagaries of modern life and demographics—because these things apparently didn't exist when Democrats were making their big unrealistic promises in 2009.
More interestingly, he contends that when then-President Obama promised Americans that their insurance premiums would drop by $2,500 per year per family, what he really meant was premiums would be $2,500 less than the anticipated rise. So, in other words, according to estimates, the average family is now supposedly paying $3,600 less than what it would have paid if Obamacare hadn't been passed.