Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s recent column on health care shows a talent for bending facts to fit ideology ("A blow to employer-based coverage," April 1). He quotes a 2011 analysis by McKinsey & Company that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would decrease the number of employers who offer health insurance. He failed to mention that this report was one outlier among a number of other economic reports done by independent think tanks (Rand, Urban), the Congressional Budget Office and a health benefits firm (Mercer) which found the opposite. The report was largely discredited, and even McKinsey had to admit that "We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not."
A more fair and balanced assessment would be that no one knows for sure how employers of all sizes will react in the new health benefits marketplace, known as exchanges, but nothing requires employers to offer benefits now, they do it because they feel they need to offer good benefits to recruit and retain talent. In addition, in 2014 under section 1513 of the Act, large employers face a shared responsibility for payments if they don't offer full time employees benefits. Explain to me again why large employers would drop coverage.
Mary Jo Braid-Forbes, Silver Spring
The writer is policy advisor to Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative.Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times