Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. The conversation on Mr Kain’s simplification of motives for war continues. It seems to me pretty clear that the simplifications have problems in that they don’t match motives for war very well and often the assignment to categories are very strained. The question might then devolve to asking what advantage is gained by this simplification. If none, then its just a pointless pedagogical exercise. 
  2. The new 1099 and small businesses
  3. France and the Great Depression
  4. Inequality and red pickled fish.
  5. “Washington Rules” …. Rules!? Rules does not seem to me the best word for rampant venal stupidity inflicted on others.
  6. Case in point.
  7. Talking about intellectual honesty.
  8. Heh.
  9. Tradition done right.
  10. Our future, zero tolerance for dissent.
  11. Pray for the safe travel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    Our future, zero tolerance for dissent.

    More like consumer fraud IMO. The only two provisions that I believe are in effect right now are allowing parents to keep their kids on their health plan until 26 and eliminating the $2M lifetime limit. Young 20-somethings do not typically have a lot of heavy health expenses and there’s not many people who hit the lifetime caps on care (my father-in-law had quadruple bipass and years earlier a Whipple for pancreatic cancer. Two very high cost operations and yet I don’t think the two together would cross the $300K mark, let alone $2M). If this is what the companies are saying is costing 9% of previous premiums I don’t buy it.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    If this is what the companies are saying is costing 9% of previous premiums I don’t buy it.

    Well, that’s pretty not much what they are saying so feel free to not buy it. The plans that require 8-9% increases don’t rely on only that they are required to cover more people. I don’t know why you pretend it does or did.

    The new law requires extensions in coverage and in who is covered, i.e., adding years of coverage for young adults and in many cases requiring expansion of coverage for the entire plan. The Democrats front-loaded Obamacare with a lot of expansions in services and coverages with some idea that this would not increase costs. Well, wake up, TANSTAAFL dude. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the Obamacare setting aside economic notions for fairy tales and wishful thinking (not the least of which is increased demand and lowered supply would control costs).

  3. Boonton says:

    Mark, there are multiple provisions going into effect at different times…..however the claim that 9% increases in rates are due to the horrible costs of covering 24 yr olds is simply a lie. Now if you or they want to argue that future increases of 9% will be necessary because of the pre-existing condition requirements or whatnot that’s an open argument.

  4. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I read about the increases in the WSJ. The article did not make the claim that those citing a 8% increase in rates based it on an increase in coverage of 24 y/o kids but that many policies that people had in place, esp small businesses, are not deemed insufficient and their coverage had to be increased to meet new standards … which was what the article and those needing that increase pointed to for that increase.

    Now, if you want to lie and say their stated reasons is the 24 y/o thing so that you can demonize them and stand on your soapbox. Go right ahead. But, you do know if you need to resort to lying to make your case … you must not have a very good leg to stand on.

  5. Boonton says:

    That, though, would not fit your criticism of the Secretary attacking dissent. If premiums haven’t increased but small business have to by more coverage that’s simply not a premium increase anymore than your tab at a dinner increasing because you opt for dessert in addition to a meal can be said to be an increase in menu prices. It would be strange indeed for an insurance company to even assert that its a premium increase. They would simply say ‘hey bud, you’re buying 10% more coverage than last year so the bill is 10% higher.’ The two mandates that I’m aware of that can be plausibly related to premiums are the 24yr old thing and the lifetime $2M cap. While this would increase medical costs the insurance company may have to spend it’s no plausible to scapegoat for a 9% increase in prices. Esp. since we’ve been having rather large increases for years now long before the bill passed.

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Stop (not) making sense. This happens all the time. You want X, well you have to pay for the upgrade. It’s not a “different” product its a cost increase and premium. Part of the article was pointing the fallacies of Mr Obama’s claim that “everybody can keep their current coverage”, yet here we find as the laws are implemented this is in fact not true because the “current coverage” needed to be change and costs when up, which for some means they can’t keep it.

    I’ll review the article in question tonight.

  7. Boonton says:

    I’ll review the article as well. My point, though, makes all the sense in the world.

    If the gov’t passes a law saying all beef must be organic it’s quite clear why dinners may announce hamburger prices are going up, say, 10%. Now if organic beef only costs 1% more than regular, I’d say its deceptive if the dinner says its price increase is due to the regulation.

    If gov’t passes a law that says all hamburger platters must be purchased with a slice of pie, there is no price increase there. The dinner isn’t raising their prices, you are buying more from the dinner so you pay more. Likewise there is no 10% price increase. Dinners have nothing to justify since their menu prices are just as they were before the law.

    It’s easy to see how this comes into play if you consider a third possibility. Say there’s a law requiring both organic beef AND a side of cake. In this case the organic beef requirement will cause a price increase AND the requriement to buy more food will cause additional cost.