24 Responses

  1. NY Times needs better editors:

    Lede on the home page:

    “Health Care Law Frustrates Many in the Middle Class
    By KATIE THOMAS, REED ABELSON and JO CRAVEN McGINTY

    While the Affordable Care Act clearly benefits those at the low and high ends of the income scale, many middle-class Americans don’t qualify for subsidies, and are facing steep premium prices.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/business/new-health-law-frustrates-many-in-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

    In the actual body of the story:

    “While the act clearly benefits those at the low end of the income scale — and rich people can continue to afford even the most generous plans — ”

    Rich people still being able to afford health insurance doesn’t equate to the the PPACA “benefiting” them. The only beneficiaries of the PPACA are on the low end of the income scale.

    Like

  2. What’s fascination is that the only reason they believed it is because they consumed left-wing news only. They’re epistemically closed.

    “They’re frustrated,” he said. “Everybody was thinking that Obamacare was going to come in with more affordable rates. Well, they’re not more affordable.”

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/business/new-health-law-frustrates-many-in-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

    Like

    • McWing:

      What’s fascination is that the only reason they believed it is because they consumed left-wing news only.

      Has there ever been a bigger marketing fraud perpetrated on consumers than O-care? In all honesty, I can’t think of one.

      Like

  3. Social Security sold as insurance rather than it’s true nature, a Ponzi Scheme. Runner up is the fraud that you “paid into” SS and Medicare and then become eligible for those “accrued” benefits.

    Like

    • McWing:

      Social Security sold as insurance rather than it’s true nature, a Ponzi Scheme. Runner up is the fraud that you “paid into” SS and Medicare and then become eligible for those “accrued” benefits.

      Yup, those are two good examples.

      Like

  4. These people are idiots! You go find a more affordable catastrophic plan.

    A couple of years ago, when my ex-husband and I were paying for health insurance under COBRA, we were shelling out something like $1,200 a month for just the two of us — and we were making far less than 100K a year. In fact, we were earning more like half that.

    Really, I’ve been in this situation. Buy a catastrophic plan so there’s no break in coverage. Jesus, the stupid.

    I never understand this.

    Single payer is a great idea and I hope we get there eventually.

    Why? What monopoly does the government control that is run well?

    How does the writer know?

    Obamacare has already provided health coverage for nearly four million Americans who lacked such coverage before.

    Again, where is the evidence for this?

    The ACA will create many more winners than losers.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_12/the_new_york_times_and_the_aca048305.php

    But I’m the anti-science wingnut?

    Like

  5. What monopoly does the government control that is run well?

    Medicare and the VA system.

    Like

  6. I remember people at PL being adamant that the Abomination would reduce the deficit. I still can’t figure out if they were lying or if the actually believed it.

    important to remember that the AHA was one of Obamacare’s fiercest supporters. AHA lobbied to pass the bill and filed briefs in federal court to defend the individual mandate. AHA’s lobbying firms include the Ricchetti Group, founded by Joe Biden’s chief of staff, Steve Ricchetti. Steve’s brother Jeff currently lobbies for the AHA on “DSH Relief.”

    http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/with-gift-to-hospitals-democrats-continue-to-scrap-obamacare-deficit-reduction/article/2541077?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Like

  7. Michi, why do you believe those systems are well run?

    Like

  8. Who else here thinks nagging young people is effective?

    and encouraging peers and parents to put pressure on the uninsured.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/21/us-usa-healthcare-youth-analysis-idUSBRE9BK03E20131221?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

    Like

  9. Michi, why do you believe those systems are well run?

    They’re wildly popular with their constituents. Just try taking Medicare away from the elderly. And keep your anarchist hands off my VA healthcare!!!

    Like

  10. This is my favorite Obamacare ad that I’ve seen so far (h/t yellojkt).

    Like

    • McWing,

      If our government paid SS back the $2.3 trillion still owed to it, would you still think SS has not been a good policy and has not been run well?

      Like

    • Mcwing:

      Should we equate “well run” with constituent happiness?

      Nope. As you rightly point out, “free” stuff is always popular. That doesn’t mean that the program designed to give away stuff for “free” is run well or efficiently. And since the organization giving away “free” stuff actually can just take it from third parties without their consent, it is pretty much guaranteed to be poorly run and inefficient.

      Like

  11. Doesn’t that ad stereotype homosexuals?

    Like

  12. Hi Geanie!

    SS is a Ponzi scheme. It requires current workers to pay for current retiree’s. If there is low population growth long term, the system collapses. Further, there is no return on investment since it’s not an investment. I would bet there are literally millions of recipients, receiving benefits who are in fact dead. For Blacks it’s a particularly crappy deal as they die younger and do not get close to what they paid in taxes to support the scheme.

    Ultimately though, it’s because if the problem you described, the government spending SS money (in fact, raising more SS revenue than required to fund various other government boondoggles) on other government boondoggles that makes it the disaster it is. Government is by it’s very nature wasteful and fraudulent. The fact that there was revenue coming in is the reason it was spent on other things.

    Like

  13. This is what out betters think.

    I suspect there is only one way to really get trust back. We need to pass strong regulations, embodying norms of good behavior, and appoint bold regulators to enforce them.

    Am I strange for finding that horrifying?

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?ref=opinion

    Like

  14. That Stiglitz piece is incoherent. He argues for more trust, and uses the example of the banking crisis as a case for where trust was abused.

    Presumably if the banks were untrustworthy, then you shouldn’t trust them.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?ref=opinion&_r=0

    His paraphrase of Adam Smith’s views strikes me as exactly right:

    “Adam Smith argued forcefully that we would do better to trust in the pursuit of self-interest than in the good intentions of those who pursue the general interest. If everyone looked out for just himself, we would reach an equilibrium that was not just comfortable but also productive, in which the economy was fully efficient.”

    I for one certainly don’t trust “in the good intentions of those who [purport to] pursue the general interest”

    Like

    • jnc:

      That Stiglitz piece is incoherent.

      Yes. It is both incoherent in its larger theme and all-too-typically ignorant in its particulars. His understanding of the financial crisis seems to be based primarily on the standard liberal caricature rather than an actual grasp of what was going on. His use of the phrase “derivatives and other chicanery” goes some way towards showing just where he is coming from.

      Like

  15. Medicare is not well run. at all.
    While it might be popular with its beneficiaries, treatment decisions are based on how providers can use the reimbursement system to their advantage. They do so because the program underpays so much they’d go out of business otherwise. It is a disaster. It absolutely provides care for beneficiaries, but it is neither efficient or cost effective. It is also a relic from the 60s. The benefit structure was not designed to handle people with multiple chronic conditions for decades.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: