In February, I analyzed how Politico functions as a glorified patronage racket, whereby “reporters serve as a publicity rag for K Street and get paid handsomely for doing so.” Six months later, another such article serves as Example No. 8,579 (or thereabouts) of this swamp machine in action.

In this particular case, Politico published an advertisement — I mean, article — about a potential extension of Obamacare’s enhanced insurance subsidies, which expire at the end of the year. That story ignored sizable evidence of fraud associated with the subsidies, while including not a single quote from a critic or skeptic of such an extension. It looks like a not-too-subtle attempt from Politico to cheerlead for the insurance industry — i.e., its corporate subscribers.

Big Signs of Fraud

The article focused largely on Florida and highlighted that state’s sizable enrollment in Exchange coverage, particularly for households claiming very low incomes, which qualify for the biggest subsidies: 

Florida is one of 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid, so it’s more difficult for some low-income residents to qualify for the government health insurance program. The enhanced subsidies ensure that people who would be eligible under an expansion — those making just above the federal poverty level, with incomes between about $15,600 and $21,600 — can get Obamacare coverage, typically with no premiums. Two-thirds of the 4.6 million Floridians on Obamacare plans are in this gap…

But there’s one big fact Politico omitted: According to one study, while there are nearly 3.1 million Obamacare enrollees claiming income just above poverty in Florida, estimates derived from the Census Bureau suggest that only about 630,000 households actually have incomes in that range. (Disclosure: While I have done work for the Paragon Health Institute, which published the study in question, I had no involvement with this particular report and am writing this article on my own behalf.)

In other words, by one organization’s estimate, more than 2.4 million enrollees — over half of Florida’s total Exchange enrollment — are potentially fraudulent. These individuals may have overstated their income because households with income below the poverty level don’t qualify for subsidies at all, or conversely, they may have understated their income if they make two or three times the poverty level, so they can qualify for bigger subsidies. Alternatively, people could have been enrolled in “free” coverage without their knowledge by insurance brokers seeking commissions, an offense one Florida-based insurance executive pleaded guilty to this April.

Yet Politico mentioned none of this. It advertised the total enrollment in the Florida Exchange, and the billions of dollars in enhanced subsidies that went to Florida, without noting either the significant questions about enrollment discrepancies in Florida’s Exchange population or the fraud — totaling $133.9 million, according to the Justice Department — that one Florida-based individual has already admitted to.

Selective Quotation

If those omissions weren’t bad enough, consider to whom Politico did speak. The article quoted an analyst from the Kaiser Family Foundation (a leftist think tank), the Florida Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Hospital Association, and another Florida-based trade association, all of whom support the subsidy extension. 

The reporters quoted from a memo that Tony Fabrizio, President Trump’s pollster, wrote in support of extending the subsidies. But they didn’t note that said memo was written for a relatively recent “dark money” group, Plymouth Union Public Advocacy, and didn’t ask whether that group was funded by insurance companies. (Isn’t it funny how reporters only care about whether conservatives are funded by “dark money?”) 

Then there was this gem of a quote: “’If you want something that would become a big political mess, it is going into next year’s election with people having rate shock and not being able to purchase health care coverage,’ said a health insurance executive who Politico granted anonymity to speak freely” (emphasis added).

You don’t say — a health insurance executive who supports an extension of subsidies to health insurance companies? What do you want to wager that this executive — “granted anonymity to speak freely,” for reasons that appear far from obvious — just so happens to spend tens of thousands of dollars subscribing to Politico Pro?

Granted, the Politico reporters claimed that 10 Republican members of Congress with high Obamacare enrollment in their districts did not respond to requests for comment, as did Florida’s two Republican senators. The story did quote Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., saying that “we [i.e., Congress] have time to deal with this” before Dec. 31, which doesn’t really discuss the merits of the issue. 

But if the reporters couldn’t find someone to speak to the substantive reasons why opponents don’t want to extend the subsidies, they simply weren’t trying hard enough. An NBC News story on the subsidy extension in July, in addition to citing Republican supporters of the extension, quoted two Republican members of Congress who were outright opposed, along with several more who ranged from ambivalent to skeptical.

The Politico reporters made no attempt to quote such skeptics in their article. Moreover, they never attempted to describe, not even in their own words, why people might oppose a subsidy extension. That raises an obvious question: If a subsidy extension is so noncontroversial, as the article makes it appear, then why hasn’t Congress approved one yet? The fact that Congress hasn’t acted strongly suggests that someone or something doesn’t want to extend the subsidies. Yet in a 1,600-word article, Politico dared not question why.

Swamp Racket

The Politico reporters in question also did not respond to my request for comment about their selective sourcing for their article. But then again, perhaps no response was necessary because the motivation was self-evident.

As the saying goes, “The answer to all your questions is money.” Politico, to say nothing of its reporters, has every reason to prioritize the bottom lines of the corporate subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars every year. So who should be surprised when the publication turns a “news story” into a de facto infomercial for insurance companies?

Special interests first, taxpayers last. That’s just another day at the office for Politico, one of the biggest creatures polluting the K Street swamp.