Wednesday Highlights

Woops. Missed one.

  1. Hollywood cougars. I’m guessing that fooled you.
  2. Most everyone will pay more and we won’t like it. It has been remarked that “the horrible web services” aren’t the problem with Obamacare. That’s right. It’s just the horrible think hiding worse things. The Democrat gambit is that you pay more and they tell you they are giving you a subsidy to help you pay for it and you won’t notice your bottom line is worse, your deductible is worse, and you are paying for coverages you don’t want. You’re supposed to be so thankful for the subsidy (free cash!!!) that you’ll ignore the rest. So, will the pretend subsidy blind you to the flaws? How stupid are we? Dem answer -> really stupid. Are we? Time will tell.
  3. Science, really good at noting the obvious.
  4. More importantly lying is part of the political culture.
  5. An expert on “women in the workplace” speaks, except in a short review of his career, he spent a whole year or two in the workplace in ’68 and ’69. Expert indeed.
  6. A tech review of healthcare isn’t impressed.
  7. Let’s see, the UN “is going after Assad” for war-crimes because the atrocities on both sides are rampant. If crimes are symmetric why would the justice seeking be asymmetric?
  8. The all powerful loofah.

8 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. 2.Most everyone will pay more and we won’t like it. It has been remarked that “the horrible web services” aren’t the problem with Obamacare. That’s right..

    A fine example of the Chewbacca Defense. Everyone will pay more. And the young and healthy are unfairly subsidizing the sick and old (but then wouldn’t the sick and old be paying less?). And total health care costs are growing slower than they used too…but yet everyone still is paying more (nevermind trying to make the sum of the parts add up to the total!). Any argument that rests on incoherency can be automatically rejected without any effort.

  2. 7.Let’s see, the UN “is going after Assad” for war-crimes because the atrocities on both sides are rampant.

    If crimes are symmetric why would the justice seeking be asymmetric?

    1. Symmetry is not a defense to criminal accusations. You don’t get out of a speeding ticket just because other people were going just as fast as you and didn’t get pulled over.

    2. Do you have evidence that the crimes actually are symmetric? That’s an order bigger than simply saying there are ‘crimes on both sides’. Even the US military has had individual soldiers commit war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan so that’s pretty much a given for any serious armed conflict.

    3. Who exactly should the UN be going after on the opposition side? From what I’ve read the opposition is broken into multiple groups with no overriding authority. Syria’s gov’t, though, is run by Assad. Even if you did establish that #2 is the case, you’d have to identify numerous multiple targets.

    On that last point, that’s not saying it shouldn’t be done. But let’s say I told you in the entire world there were 6 million unsolved homicides that happened over the last 10 years. That may be true but that’s simply NOT the same thing as the Holocaust happening all over again. If one regime murdered 6 million people over the last ten years “why aren’t we trying to solve all those cold case files” would not be much of an argument against addressng it.

  3. In regards to #2, what seems to have been left out of the story is the fact that the ACA did NOT require congressmen to buy health insurance from the exchanges. Congressmen were provided healthcare as full time federal employees. Republicans, in a bid to try to demonstrate they were ‘forcing Congress to live with what it imposes on Americans’ passed a bill dumping them off the employee provided insurance.

    Of course this little side story is left out because dishonesty is accepted as a norm by those who oppose the ACA. This not only leaves critics with a massive credibility problem, it also is an act of bad faith on the part of the disloyal opposition. The idea behind a loyal opposition is an honest effort to be the critic. The system as a whole depends upon that in order to expose and fix real flaws and problems by bringing a different perspective to the table.

    It also makes the comparison pretty flawed. The comparison would not be between buying insurance on the exchange versus employer provided insurance (which is almost always a better deal for the individual since much of the cost is hidden from the paycheck), but between what the individual would pay if he was fired and had to use COBRA, paying the full cost of his employer provided insurance. In that case it wouldn’t be surprising if the Congressman’s exchange policy was more or less the same as his previous one or possibly even better.

  4. Boonton,
    1. Symmetry is not offered as a defense of Asssad but as an indictment of the UN. If you give speeding tickets only to people wearing hats that doesn’t defend speeders wearing hats, but it is a question for your methods.

    2. Why do you expect the regime is using dirtier methods than the insurgents?

    3. Are you pretending the UN and others have no clue whom Assad is fighting. OK. Just tell them to go home then. They’re useless because clearly they’re only getting their on the ground information from US beltway pundits.

    I’m unclear of the relevance of your last point. Are you pretending Assad has killed millions and the opposition dozens? Cite?

  5. Boonton,

    Congressmen were provided healthcare as full time federal employees.

    Actually they get subsidies I believe.

    Apparently you are hiding your head in the sand … people are finding their ACA mandated insurance is higher cost and higher deductables. This you ignore by your “misconstrue and attack straw men” method.

    You however are not alone.

    Try again.

  6. Actually they get subsidies I believe.

    Under the ACA? Unlikely since subsidies are based on income and most congressmen have a very healthy income.

    people are finding their ACA mandated insurance is higher cost and higher deductables.

    then why are you making your case by trying to compare apples to oranges?

  7. Boonton,

    Under the ACA? Unlikely since subsidies are based on income and most congressmen have a very healthy income.

    Uhm. I didn’t say they got their subsidy from the ACA. I read that Congressional health insurance as not provided but subsidized for members. This seems to support that.

    then why are you making your case by trying to compare apples to oranges?

    I’m not sure to what you refer.

  8. This link doesn’t seem to help your argument very much:

    Before Obamacare, Congress’ plans were administered by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and the government paid a yearly contribution to those plans of $4,966.80 for singles and $10,048.76 for families.

    So it doesn’t tell us how much Congressmen paid out of their salary but the gov’t’s share was $10K.

    Using the Kasier Family Foundation Subsidy Calculator, the D.C. family of four making $94,250 a year, or just $50 above the 400% of poverty level, would pay $15,481 a year for their family health plan if they chose the silver plan (the middle-tier plan used by Kaiser). They would receive $0 in subsidy. –

    So with a subsidy of $10,048.76, a Congressman would pay $5432.24 per year out of his pay or about $208 every two weeks to cover a family of four. That’s basically pretty comparable to most employer provided insurance packages. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if the old system was even more generous to Congressmen but the problem you have is where is this dramatic increase in costs you’re been talking about?

    I’m not sure to what you refer.

    Comparing employer provided insurance only from the POV of the employee (i.e. not considering the total cost of the insurance, what the employer kicks in) to buying a plan on the exchange.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>