Progressive Propoganda | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
misplaced post (none / 0)
This comment should have been put into the existing thread on the subject.  I may delete it and paste it into there.

http://www.theyoungturks.co m/story/2010/3/19/1684/1725 8

David

by yturks on 03/20/2010 01:20:20 PM EST

Fair point, but if/until you delete anything (none / 0)

let me repost my comment from that thread:

Yesterday after the show I briefly spoke to RJ and he said that even though he's in favor of passing the bill, Hamsher is 100% correct and that her list makes a lot of great points.

So if her list is good enough for a healthcare consultant (who's also in favor of passing the bill), it's good enough for me. As for wanting more detail, that's what the links for all 18 points are for.

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 03:25:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jane (none / 0)

I felt this should have it's own thread.

Tom, I've read all of the CBO reports front to back.  They are fairly short, and have some nice charts.  I'm telling you that Hamsher is cherry-picking numbers from those reports to mislead people. 

Now, she's taking the very best numbers to make her case.  But somebody has to make the opposite case. 

by publius on 03/21/2010 12:56:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On second thought (none / 0)
Go ahead and delete this thread.  It's obvious nobody cares anyway.

by publius on 03/21/2010 01:15:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I care (none / 0)

I found the Hamsher piece persuasive. I was against the current proposal when I read it, though. I am aware she might just be playing into my bias so I was interested in your response. Maybe my bias is still coloring my judgment but, while your response makes interesting points, I don't think you made a compelling argument against Hamsher. Maybe you can "talk me down," if you care to.

1. A move from covering 83% to 95% is an improvement but is it worth the cost of giving the industry more power by compelling, unconstitutionally in my opinion, individuals to by insurance when we will still be left with 24 million uninsured? Regardless of what percentage it represents, 24 million is a lot of people, particularly since a single payer system would leave no one uncovered and, because it would probably be constitutional, would not be another example of an American government of men, not laws.

2. I don't see how your response to this item contradicts Hamsher's point. She is saying the industry actually proposed and likes the plan. Doesn't the notion that the industry is in a death spiral, a new idea to me, just explain why the industry likes the plan? If the industry is in a death spiral, we might be better off passing no law at all. When the industry crashes and burns, we will have what Obama claimed was missing if we were going to institute a single payer system: a situation where we are starting from scratch.

3. Except for the people receiving subsidies, the savings you indicate will result do not strike me as dramatic, again raising the question of whether passing the plan is worth the downside. The relevance of the savings for the subsidized group seems questionable. Aren't they going to save money mostly because their premiums are subsidized? In other words, does this figure represent an actual reduction of premiums or just the fact that the government will pay a portion of the premiums?

4. This may be your strongest point but I couldn't find the source of your figure. The link you provided is to a health reform subisidy calculator.

5. There is a difference between people in Massachusetts and other states: in other states they are not forced to buy insurance they cannot afford to use. 

6. I simply disagree with your point. Forcing someone to buy something is not providing it to them. 

by Corpusless on 03/21/2010 04:30:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reply (none / 0)

1.  You go from a situation in which 1/5 of the population isn't covered by insurance to a system where 1/20th of the population isn't covered.  That seems pretty good to me.

The constitutionality argument I very little  sympathy for.  It isn't that you're making it illegal to not own health insurance.  Nobody is going to put you in handcuffs and lock you away.  You're simply taxing people differently based on whether they purchase insurance or not. 

2.  Here is Krugman's description of the death spiral.  Basically, as insurance premiums increase young healthy individuals drop out and decide to risk it without insurance.  This means the pool of people who still do own insurance are on average sicker and therefore more expensive so the insurance company must raise premiums again.  When that happens more people will decide to forgo insurance making the risk pool even costlier forcing another increase in premiums.  This cycle feeds on itself until premiums are so high that very few people purchase insurance.  This is why the individual (non-group) market for insurance is practically non-existent. 

The plan was proposed by liberal economists and adopted by all of the Democratic presidential candidates during the primaries.

3.   I don't feel like getting into this.  Follow Hamsher's link to the CBO on premiums.  This is an analysis of the Senate bill.

4.   Go to that calculator and plug in the income that Hamsher uses.  You could probably use many other sources to find out how much a family of four pays for insurance on average.  Do you doubt that it isn't above $6,000 per year?  Most families are "forced" to purchase insurance currently either through their employer or for the simple reason that they can not afford to get sick if they don't have insurance. 

5.  The question isn't whether MA is perfect, but is it better than the rest of the United States. 

6.  You're right.  It's not.  But in my opinion it is a needed reform in the way the system works if we're going to have a private market health insurance system that works. 

by publius on 03/21/2010 05:30:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Progressive Propoganda | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)