"Obamacare" Critics Wrong on 8 Counts

[Jermyn Davidson]

"Looking back at expectations set during the first enrollment shows how terribly pundits and politicians expected Obamacare to go — and how much of the predicted disaster never actually happened."

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117...-critics-wrong

[Jermyn Davidson]

My favorite quote from the article is below.

"The simple fact is that the federal government is spending less on health care with Obamacare than it expected to spend without Obamacare," my colleague Ezra Klein wrote recently." "That's remarkable."

[Carl]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

My favorite quote from the article is below.

"The simple fact is that the federal government is spending less on health care with Obamacare than it expected to spend without Obamacare," my colleague Ezra Klein wrote recently." "That's remarkable."

OK....but are the end-users of the healthcare system spending less? There are a lot of stories of increases in annual premiums, higher co-pays and deductibles.

[Pressing-On]

Ezra Klein.....

Ezra Klein aims to fix the news

...the next big thing is Ezra Klein joining Vox Media (home of some high traffic sites) to start a new website somehow related to what we think of as news.

You can read the announcement. It’s very, what’s the word, oh yeah, hubris-ee.

Ezra, and sidekick Matthew Yglesias (of Sarah Palin target map fame), will create a website to explain what the news means, not just what the news is. In other words, more of the same, but on a higher tech platform.

But there was one sentence in the announcement that jumped out at me (emphasis added):

"But we’re also hiring. If you share our passion for fixing the news, you should send us your resume here, and tell us how you want to help us do a better job informing our readers."

I think that’s a pretty revealing description, more revealing than Klein probably intended.

Fixing the news is what happened at the Journolist, run by Klein, when the mostly young and upcoming D.C. brat pack-ers strategized how they collectively should play events (such as attacks on Sarah Palin and Trig Palin) so as not to damage the Obama campaign:

The emerging picture of the Journolist is that it served as a place where like-minded people who had great influence on how the media portrayed events were able to coordinate their story lines for the benefit of the Obama campaign.

We saw the media bias on the surface; the Journolistas helped frame that bias below the surface.

Nothing has changed. Now it’s called fixing the news.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/01...-fix-the-news/

JournoList Revelations Suggest Founder Ezra Klein Not Accurate in Defenses of Liberal Group

The more details emerge about the liberal media listserv JournoList, the more it resembles the cabal of leftist message-coordination many conservatives feared. Though perhaps not the "vast left-wing media conspiracy" Fred Barnes proclaims, evidence points to concerted efforts to coordinate talking points, and now, to direct links between the Obama White House and JournoList members.

In fact, message-coordination went far further than just discussing how best to frame an issue. For instance, Time columnist Joe Klein told his colleagues in one email that he had worked their suggestions into his latest column. As Ed Morrissey notes, Klein "represented those opinions as his own — and one has to wonder how many other talking points from JournoList Klein passed off as his own over the years at Time."

In other words, the answer to Ezra Klein's question - "Is [JournoList] an ornate temple where liberals get together to work out 'talking points'?" - is the not the resounding "of course not" he offered last year.

But the real issue is not whether Klein was being honest with his readers when he made the above assertions. More important is the fact that the accusations about JournoList Klein was trying to fend off were not at all off-base. The listserv has acted as a forum to coordinate talking points, and included at least one member of a presidential campaign, who later, as a top White House adviser, invited the upper crust of liberal bloggers to the White House for an exclusive meeting.

Klein was obliged to defend JournoList against these accusations, but the more we find out, the more we realize just how accurate those accusations were.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan...accurate-chara

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

My favorite quote from the article is below.

"The simple fact is that the federal government is spending less on health care with Obamacare than it expected to spend without Obamacare," my colleague Ezra Klein wrote recently." "That's remarkable."

That mean services to the disabled and elderly are now sub-par

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

"Looking back at expectations set during the first enrollment shows how terribly pundits and politicians expected Obamacare to go — and how much of the predicted disaster never actually happened."

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117...-critics-wrong

It would be nice if you could lift up your head and look around a little bit.

The Affordable Care Act’s Mounting Budgetary Pressures


Abstract

To obscure the huge deficit increases from the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions, the legislation’s authors packaged those expensive components together with a collection of dubious revenue and savings measures. Now, the Congressional Budget Office states that the total fiscal effects of the legislation can no longer be determined.

—President Barack Obama, about the national health care plan, March 23, 2010

Today, the facts are simple. While the spending components of the national health insurance law have largely remained intact, the major cost-saving measures are still in the early stages of enforcement, and their budgetary impact remains uncertain. Indeed, some are highly subject to alteration as their effects take hold. This should not be surprising: In an early and perceptive piece on the politics of the ACA, Jacob S. Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University and an ardent supporter of the law, warned his fellow “progressives”:

Financing is the soft underbelly of health reform. The health care bill relies on a grab bag of revenue sources. Over the long term, if costs grow more quickly than these sources, federal deficits and the pressure to cut subsidies for coverage will grow. Both outcomes would undermine the ability of reform to achieve its promise and public confidence in the law.[6]
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...tary-pressures

[Jito463]

First of all, the "gubberment" shouldn't be meddling in health care to begin with.

Second, as Praxeas already pointed out, reduced spending just means reduced benefits.

Third, even if health insurance goes down due to Obummer-care, in the long run we'll be dealing with subpar treatment because fewer people will want to become doctors.

I also am concerned that this is merely a prelude to "gubberment" taking over health insurance companies.

[aegsm76]

http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/

JD, how about going here and seeing if you can find anything that troubles you.

snippets

"Premium assistance tax credits: On page 11 the report states: “Lower estimated enrollment in coverage obtained through the exchanges in every year accounts for the majority of the $28 billion reduction in the estimated cost of premium assistance tax credits,” (CBO, Page 11). Well, THAT’S not good when ENROLLMENT is the number one goal of a law. That doesn’t sound like costing less than anticipated, it sounds like having to pay out to fewer people than anticipated. "

"Lowered costs of Obamacare because more people than thought are choosing cheaper plans: Oh no, the federal government is also saving money on cost-sharing subsidies (as differentiated from premium tax credits) and the CBO thinks that this trend will continue because it expects “…that more people will forgo those subsidies by choosing to enroll in a bronze plan instead of a silver plan…” Even though the “…agencies had previously estimated that few people would forgo cost-sharing subsidies… data suggest that a significant number of people are selecting plans that minimize their monthly premium payments…” CBO page 13.

That’s no good. That means that health plans aren’t so affordable after all since greater numbers than anticipated are opting for cheaper bronze plans (with no availability of cost-sharing subsidies though you can still get premium assistance). More people with crummier coverage than anticipated, that can’t be good. "

[Originalist]

JD, why do you think you owe allegiance to the fraud in the White house?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Originalist

JD, why do you think you owe allegiance to the fraud in the White house?

What fraud?