First, Mr. Cohn is using 9.5 million, which is the very highest of the four figures he could have selected. To his credit, he concedes the Commonwealth survey has a hefty margin of error but doesnt tell readers that it literally is the most inaccurate survey of the four he cites (with a margin of error that is literally twice as high as Gallups: 2.1 percentage points). Since the 9.5 million figure is based on an estimated reduction of 5 percentage points in the uninsured rate among non-elderly adults, this hefty margin of error women implies that the 9.5 million figure might have been 42% lower, i.e., 5.5 million. Mr. Cohn surely gets credit for offering 1 to 2.5 million as the estimated reduction in uninsured adults age 19-25 who obtained coverage through Obamacares mandate that parental plans cover such dependents (this provision has been in effect since fall 2010). These figures are much lower than the very misleading 3.1 million figure that President Obama continues to use when boasting about his law (even though Politifact.com has characterized this as Half True at best). But is it fair to add back in such individuals when trying to determine whether the administration has come close to the latest CBO projection for 2014?
Full story: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/14/what-do-we-really-know-about-obamacares-impact-on-the-number-of-uninsured/?ss=pharma