Charles Lane used his column today to take potshots at Tesla, the electric car company. While I actually share much of Lane’s skepticism on Tesla (I suspect Tesla is taking lots of people for a ride, but not in their cars) his dismissal of liberals’ interest in Tesla type projects is off the mark. He starts his piece by telling readers:
“Tesla epitomizes the mutation of modern American liberalism. Once an ideology whose central concern was the plight of lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities, liberalism is increasingly about environmentalism and related ‘quality of life’ issues.”
Lane’s distinction between issues concerning lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities and environmentalism is just silly. When Sandy hit New York and New Jersey last year a lot of people who looked like lunch-bucket working stiffs had their homes and businesses destroyed. This will be largely the story of global warming. The rich mostly have their homes on more protected areas and when their property does get hit they have insurance that protects them financially from the impact. The people who will mostly risk life, injury, and homelessness from rising oceans and extreme weather event will be lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities.
Furthermore, spending on measures to counter global warming are essentially costless in an economy that is below full employment, which all projections show will be the case for many years into the future. (I am referring to real world accounting, not to the nutty deficit hysterics we get in Washington.) This means that spending money on measures to slow global warming are a way to give jobs to lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities who would otherwise be left unemployed by the economic policies of the Washington crew.
Lane isn’t clear what “quality of life” issues he has in mind, but if these are items like paid family and sick leave, these are also very much issues for the benefit of lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities. Lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities, especially of the female persuasion, often lose their jobs because they have to care for a sick child or relative and the boss refuses to give them a day off. This is about as bread and butter an issue as you can get. The concern of liberals over such issues reflects a change in the reality of the workplace, not a change in their priorities.
Charles Lane used his column today to take potshots at Tesla, the electric car company. While I actually share much of Lane’s skepticism on Tesla (I suspect Tesla is taking lots of people for a ride, but not in their cars) his dismissal of liberals’ interest in Tesla type projects is off the mark. He starts his piece by telling readers:
“Tesla epitomizes the mutation of modern American liberalism. Once an ideology whose central concern was the plight of lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities, liberalism is increasingly about environmentalism and related ‘quality of life’ issues.”
Lane’s distinction between issues concerning lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities and environmentalism is just silly. When Sandy hit New York and New Jersey last year a lot of people who looked like lunch-bucket working stiffs had their homes and businesses destroyed. This will be largely the story of global warming. The rich mostly have their homes on more protected areas and when their property does get hit they have insurance that protects them financially from the impact. The people who will mostly risk life, injury, and homelessness from rising oceans and extreme weather event will be lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities.
Furthermore, spending on measures to counter global warming are essentially costless in an economy that is below full employment, which all projections show will be the case for many years into the future. (I am referring to real world accounting, not to the nutty deficit hysterics we get in Washington.) This means that spending money on measures to slow global warming are a way to give jobs to lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities who would otherwise be left unemployed by the economic policies of the Washington crew.
Lane isn’t clear what “quality of life” issues he has in mind, but if these are items like paid family and sick leave, these are also very much issues for the benefit of lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities. Lunch-bucket working stiffs and oppressed minorities, especially of the female persuasion, often lose their jobs because they have to care for a sick child or relative and the boss refuses to give them a day off. This is about as bread and butter an issue as you can get. The concern of liberals over such issues reflects a change in the reality of the workplace, not a change in their priorities.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That probably wasn’t his intention, but in a column where he tells readers:
“by historical standards, the United States is doing well domestically and internationally. And by any objective measure, the trend lines are positive, not negative,”
he shows the opposite.
His list of positives begins in the first paragraph:
“The economy is growing much more quickly than expected. Inflation is basically nonexistent. The federal budget deficit has been slashed dramatically. The stock market is reaching all-time highs. One of our long-running wars is over, and the other is winding down. The status of the United States as the world’s preeminent economic and military power is unchallenged.”
Okay, just about everything here is wrong. The economy grew 2.8 percent in the last quarter. According to the Congressional Budget Office we’re are 6 percentage points below potential GDP. They estimate the rate of growth of potential GDP as between 2.2 percent and 2.4 percent. This means that at the third quarter growth rate we will close the output gap and get back to full employment somewhere between 2023 and 2028.
But wait, it gets worse. The reason why the third quarter growth rate came in higher than expected was that inventories accumulated at a rapid pace. This means that cars were accumulated unsold on dealers’ lots and clothes were accumulating on store shelves. This means that production will almost certainly be cut back in the fourth quarter. That is not a positive story.
Even if the actual growth rate were 2.8 percent that would still be pathetic for a country with a severely depressed economy. We should be seeing growth in the range of 5-6 percent to make up lost ground. That is the sort of growth we saw in prior recoveries.
The other economic success stories are equally off base. We should want a higher inflation rate. That would mean lower real interest rates and reduced debt burdens for homeowners who took a hit in the housing crash. If Robinson has a story as to why the low inflation rate is good news he should write it out. It would win him a Nobel prize in economics.
The same is the case with his boast about the lower budget deficit. This means less demand in the economy and therefore slower growth and higher unemployment. Hey, let’s balance the budget and throw another 6 million people out of work. Then we can really celebrate!
It’s not clear why anyone would give a damn that the stock market is at a record high unless they are among the 20 percent of the population who own a substantial amount of stock. The value of stock is not an indicator of the well-being of the economy; it is a measure of the wealth of people who own stock. Why should the bulk of the population be happy that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are now much wealthier and can command a much larger share of the country’s output than was the case last year.
When Robinson tells us that by historical standards the United States is doing well he is using a history that he has invented. We are experiencing a downturn with a length and severity only exceeded by the Great Depression. The median household income in 2012 was below its 1997 level (Table A-1) meaning that the typical household has nothing to show for the last 15 years of economic growth.
It’s not clear if Robinson thought his column would really cheer people up, but to anyone familiar with the reality in America today, it is just depressing.
Oh, and China is about to pass the United States as the world’s largest economy for people who care about such things.
That probably wasn’t his intention, but in a column where he tells readers:
“by historical standards, the United States is doing well domestically and internationally. And by any objective measure, the trend lines are positive, not negative,”
he shows the opposite.
His list of positives begins in the first paragraph:
“The economy is growing much more quickly than expected. Inflation is basically nonexistent. The federal budget deficit has been slashed dramatically. The stock market is reaching all-time highs. One of our long-running wars is over, and the other is winding down. The status of the United States as the world’s preeminent economic and military power is unchallenged.”
Okay, just about everything here is wrong. The economy grew 2.8 percent in the last quarter. According to the Congressional Budget Office we’re are 6 percentage points below potential GDP. They estimate the rate of growth of potential GDP as between 2.2 percent and 2.4 percent. This means that at the third quarter growth rate we will close the output gap and get back to full employment somewhere between 2023 and 2028.
But wait, it gets worse. The reason why the third quarter growth rate came in higher than expected was that inventories accumulated at a rapid pace. This means that cars were accumulated unsold on dealers’ lots and clothes were accumulating on store shelves. This means that production will almost certainly be cut back in the fourth quarter. That is not a positive story.
Even if the actual growth rate were 2.8 percent that would still be pathetic for a country with a severely depressed economy. We should be seeing growth in the range of 5-6 percent to make up lost ground. That is the sort of growth we saw in prior recoveries.
The other economic success stories are equally off base. We should want a higher inflation rate. That would mean lower real interest rates and reduced debt burdens for homeowners who took a hit in the housing crash. If Robinson has a story as to why the low inflation rate is good news he should write it out. It would win him a Nobel prize in economics.
The same is the case with his boast about the lower budget deficit. This means less demand in the economy and therefore slower growth and higher unemployment. Hey, let’s balance the budget and throw another 6 million people out of work. Then we can really celebrate!
It’s not clear why anyone would give a damn that the stock market is at a record high unless they are among the 20 percent of the population who own a substantial amount of stock. The value of stock is not an indicator of the well-being of the economy; it is a measure of the wealth of people who own stock. Why should the bulk of the population be happy that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are now much wealthier and can command a much larger share of the country’s output than was the case last year.
When Robinson tells us that by historical standards the United States is doing well he is using a history that he has invented. We are experiencing a downturn with a length and severity only exceeded by the Great Depression. The median household income in 2012 was below its 1997 level (Table A-1) meaning that the typical household has nothing to show for the last 15 years of economic growth.
It’s not clear if Robinson thought his column would really cheer people up, but to anyone familiar with the reality in America today, it is just depressing.
Oh, and China is about to pass the United States as the world’s largest economy for people who care about such things.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had an article on a conference at the International Monetary Fund with the headline, “Candid Criticism of the Fed That Wasn’t On the Agenda.” The piece promises blunt criticism of the Fed from former Treasury Secretary and top Obama adviser Larry Summers:
“Now that he is no longer a candidate to head the Federal Reserve, Mr. Summers — who withdrew from consideration this fall in the face of stiff resistance in Congress, with the White House ultimately nominating Janet L. Yellen — was perhaps freer to speak in his trademark blunt style. And he didn’t disappoint, arguing that by many important metrics, policy has failed.
“Mr. Summers underscored how weak the economy remains, despite the extensive stimulus and the Fed’s continuing campaign of asset purchases, with the labor market slack and inflation subdued.
“‘My lesson from this crisis is, my overarching lesson is that it’s not over until it is over, and that is surely not right now,’ he said.
“He noted that short-term interest rates had remained close to zero for years, with no end in sight: ‘We may well need in the years ahead to think about how we manage an economy in which the zero nominal interest rate is a chronic and systemic inhibitor of economic activity.’
“‘There’s no evidence of growth that is restoring equilibrium,’ Mr. Summers added. ‘One has to be concerned about a policy agenda that is doing less with monetary policy than has been done before, doing less with fiscal policy than has been done before,’ and is ‘taking steps whose basic purpose is to cause there to be less lending, borrowing and inflated asset prices than there was before.'”
This appears to be more a criticism of the Obama administration and Congress for failing to run more aggressive fiscal policy than a criticism of the Fed. The Fed is clearly in uncharted territory in using monetary policy to try to boost the economy out of a severe slump. If Summers suggested a way in which the Fed could be more effective in boosting demand this NYT article neglected to mention it.
That would seem to imply that Summers directed the criticism at himself and his former colleagues for failing to push for more aggressive fiscal policy. Presumably he also regrets allowing bubbles to develop in his reign as Treasury Secretary, the eventual collapse of which led to the downturn. Summers likely also now would recognize that the high dollar policy that he and his predecessor pushed in the Clinton years was a serious mistake since the over-valued dollar led to a huge trade deficit. That in turn created a shortfall in demand that could only be filled by bubble generated demand.
The NYT had an article on a conference at the International Monetary Fund with the headline, “Candid Criticism of the Fed That Wasn’t On the Agenda.” The piece promises blunt criticism of the Fed from former Treasury Secretary and top Obama adviser Larry Summers:
“Now that he is no longer a candidate to head the Federal Reserve, Mr. Summers — who withdrew from consideration this fall in the face of stiff resistance in Congress, with the White House ultimately nominating Janet L. Yellen — was perhaps freer to speak in his trademark blunt style. And he didn’t disappoint, arguing that by many important metrics, policy has failed.
“Mr. Summers underscored how weak the economy remains, despite the extensive stimulus and the Fed’s continuing campaign of asset purchases, with the labor market slack and inflation subdued.
“‘My lesson from this crisis is, my overarching lesson is that it’s not over until it is over, and that is surely not right now,’ he said.
“He noted that short-term interest rates had remained close to zero for years, with no end in sight: ‘We may well need in the years ahead to think about how we manage an economy in which the zero nominal interest rate is a chronic and systemic inhibitor of economic activity.’
“‘There’s no evidence of growth that is restoring equilibrium,’ Mr. Summers added. ‘One has to be concerned about a policy agenda that is doing less with monetary policy than has been done before, doing less with fiscal policy than has been done before,’ and is ‘taking steps whose basic purpose is to cause there to be less lending, borrowing and inflated asset prices than there was before.'”
This appears to be more a criticism of the Obama administration and Congress for failing to run more aggressive fiscal policy than a criticism of the Fed. The Fed is clearly in uncharted territory in using monetary policy to try to boost the economy out of a severe slump. If Summers suggested a way in which the Fed could be more effective in boosting demand this NYT article neglected to mention it.
That would seem to imply that Summers directed the criticism at himself and his former colleagues for failing to push for more aggressive fiscal policy. Presumably he also regrets allowing bubbles to develop in his reign as Treasury Secretary, the eventual collapse of which led to the downturn. Summers likely also now would recognize that the high dollar policy that he and his predecessor pushed in the Clinton years was a serious mistake since the over-valued dollar led to a huge trade deficit. That in turn created a shortfall in demand that could only be filled by bubble generated demand.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact checker, again took a swipe at the Obama administration over its claim that under the ACA people would be able to keep their insurance if they liked their plan. (He earlier had given Obama the maximum of four Pinocchios over the issue.) The proximate cause is the administration’s efforts to blame insurers for cancelling plans, pointing out that the plans that were in place at the time the ACA was passed would be grandfathered and therefore would not be eliminated due to the requirements of the ACA.
Kessler responds by noting that the vast majority of plans in the individual market are for short periods of time. He presents evidence showing that 48.2 percent of individual plans are in effect less than 6 months and 64.5 percent are in effect less than year. Extrapolating from this evidence on the rate at which individuals leave plans, Kessler calculates that less than 4.8 percent of the people in the individual market have a plan that would be protected by this grandfather provision. Based on this assessment, he awards the Obama administration three Pinocchios for trying to blame the insurers for dropping plans.
While Kessler is undoubtedly correct in noting that few people would be protected by the grandfather provision, there are two important points worth pointing out. First, the vast majority of people hearing President Obama’s pledge would be covered by insurance through their employer. For these people it is absolutely true that the ACA allows them to keep their insurance.
As far as the minority in the individual market, while Kessler is correct that the grandfathering protects relatively few people because policies tend to be short-lived, this data also raises an issue about the pain caused by earlier than expected cancellations. Kessler’s data show that almost half of the plans will be held by people for less than six months and almost two-thirds will be held for less than a year. This means that most of the people being told that their plans are being cancelled probably would have left their plans in the first half of 2014 anyhow. While no one wants to buy insurance more than necessary, it hardly seems like a calamity if someone expected to leave their policy in March and will now have to arrange insurance through the exchange for two months.
Furthermore one has to ask about the role of insurers in this process. Kessler’s data imply that more than three quarters of the people in the individual market signed up for their policies for the first time in the last year. Didn’t insurers tell people at the time they sold the policies that these plans would only be in effect through the end of December because they did not comply with provisions in the ACA? If the insurers did inform their clients at the time they purchased their policies then they would not be surprised to find out now that they will need new insurance. If the insurance companies did not inform clients that their plans would soon be terminated then it seems that the insurers are the main culprits in this story, not the Obama administration.
Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post fact checker, again took a swipe at the Obama administration over its claim that under the ACA people would be able to keep their insurance if they liked their plan. (He earlier had given Obama the maximum of four Pinocchios over the issue.) The proximate cause is the administration’s efforts to blame insurers for cancelling plans, pointing out that the plans that were in place at the time the ACA was passed would be grandfathered and therefore would not be eliminated due to the requirements of the ACA.
Kessler responds by noting that the vast majority of plans in the individual market are for short periods of time. He presents evidence showing that 48.2 percent of individual plans are in effect less than 6 months and 64.5 percent are in effect less than year. Extrapolating from this evidence on the rate at which individuals leave plans, Kessler calculates that less than 4.8 percent of the people in the individual market have a plan that would be protected by this grandfather provision. Based on this assessment, he awards the Obama administration three Pinocchios for trying to blame the insurers for dropping plans.
While Kessler is undoubtedly correct in noting that few people would be protected by the grandfather provision, there are two important points worth pointing out. First, the vast majority of people hearing President Obama’s pledge would be covered by insurance through their employer. For these people it is absolutely true that the ACA allows them to keep their insurance.
As far as the minority in the individual market, while Kessler is correct that the grandfathering protects relatively few people because policies tend to be short-lived, this data also raises an issue about the pain caused by earlier than expected cancellations. Kessler’s data show that almost half of the plans will be held by people for less than six months and almost two-thirds will be held for less than a year. This means that most of the people being told that their plans are being cancelled probably would have left their plans in the first half of 2014 anyhow. While no one wants to buy insurance more than necessary, it hardly seems like a calamity if someone expected to leave their policy in March and will now have to arrange insurance through the exchange for two months.
Furthermore one has to ask about the role of insurers in this process. Kessler’s data imply that more than three quarters of the people in the individual market signed up for their policies for the first time in the last year. Didn’t insurers tell people at the time they sold the policies that these plans would only be in effect through the end of December because they did not comply with provisions in the ACA? If the insurers did inform their clients at the time they purchased their policies then they would not be surprised to find out now that they will need new insurance. If the insurance companies did not inform clients that their plans would soon be terminated then it seems that the insurers are the main culprits in this story, not the Obama administration.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s the question that readers of Lori Gottlieb’s column must be asking. Ms. Gottlieb claims that her Blue Cross policy was cancelled and that now she would have to pay an additional $5,400 a year for insurance that complied with the Affordable Care Act. Really?
Unless the Kaiser Family Foundation got its numbers badly messed up, Ms. Gottlieb is just making stuff up. Its website shows that a silver plan, which is mid-grade, not lowest cost, would cost a person living in Los Angeles with one kid $5,244 a year. That is less than $5,400 addition to her health care costs claimed in the piece. Let’s assume that Blue Cross in California does not give away insurance to people who are 46, even if they are in excellent health. If Blue Cross charges $250 a month for insurance for a healthy 46 year-old with one kid then Ms. Gottlieb is currently paying $3,000 a year for insurance.
That means that Obamacare is raising Ms. Gottlieb’s insurance costs by just over $2,200 a year or less than half of the amount claimed in her piece. It would be nice if the NYT would have fact checkers examine the claims made in its op-eds instead of just giving them a license to make facts up to advance their argument.
Note: cost of insurance numbers under Obamacare corrected. Thanks to Robert Salzberg.
That’s the question that readers of Lori Gottlieb’s column must be asking. Ms. Gottlieb claims that her Blue Cross policy was cancelled and that now she would have to pay an additional $5,400 a year for insurance that complied with the Affordable Care Act. Really?
Unless the Kaiser Family Foundation got its numbers badly messed up, Ms. Gottlieb is just making stuff up. Its website shows that a silver plan, which is mid-grade, not lowest cost, would cost a person living in Los Angeles with one kid $5,244 a year. That is less than $5,400 addition to her health care costs claimed in the piece. Let’s assume that Blue Cross in California does not give away insurance to people who are 46, even if they are in excellent health. If Blue Cross charges $250 a month for insurance for a healthy 46 year-old with one kid then Ms. Gottlieb is currently paying $3,000 a year for insurance.
That means that Obamacare is raising Ms. Gottlieb’s insurance costs by just over $2,200 a year or less than half of the amount claimed in her piece. It would be nice if the NYT would have fact checkers examine the claims made in its op-eds instead of just giving them a license to make facts up to advance their argument.
Note: cost of insurance numbers under Obamacare corrected. Thanks to Robert Salzberg.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Folks at the Washington Post generally don’t like to have facts interfere with their stories about the world. We got another example of this behavior in its article on the Labor Department’s job numbers for October. The Post told readers:
“In addition, Chudars [Judy, Chudars, the president of a job placement firm in Washington] said, more people are voluntarily leaving their jobs for lateral positions — a key characteristic of a healthy labor market that economists call ‘churn.'”
Contrary to Ms. Chudars assertion, the Labor Department’s report showed a sharp drop in the share of unemployment due to people who had voluntarily quit their jobs, which would imply a decline in churn.
The article then repeated comments from Labor Department Secretary Thomas Perez:
““I’m heartened by the numerous conversations I have with employers who say, “I want to grow my business,”‘ Perez said. But they often add that ‘too many people coming through the door don’t have the skills that I need.'”
In fact the data show no evidence of any major skills shortage. Since the beginning of the downturn wages of non-production supervisory workers have actually risen on average somewhat more slowly than the generally less-skilled production and non-supervisory workers. In other words, the data imply that we just have a shortage of demand, not the skills shortage claimed by the WaPo’s friends.
Folks at the Washington Post generally don’t like to have facts interfere with their stories about the world. We got another example of this behavior in its article on the Labor Department’s job numbers for October. The Post told readers:
“In addition, Chudars [Judy, Chudars, the president of a job placement firm in Washington] said, more people are voluntarily leaving their jobs for lateral positions — a key characteristic of a healthy labor market that economists call ‘churn.'”
Contrary to Ms. Chudars assertion, the Labor Department’s report showed a sharp drop in the share of unemployment due to people who had voluntarily quit their jobs, which would imply a decline in churn.
The article then repeated comments from Labor Department Secretary Thomas Perez:
““I’m heartened by the numerous conversations I have with employers who say, “I want to grow my business,”‘ Perez said. But they often add that ‘too many people coming through the door don’t have the skills that I need.'”
In fact the data show no evidence of any major skills shortage. Since the beginning of the downturn wages of non-production supervisory workers have actually risen on average somewhat more slowly than the generally less-skilled production and non-supervisory workers. In other words, the data imply that we just have a shortage of demand, not the skills shortage claimed by the WaPo’s friends.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Most economists probably would not put France as one of the worst basket cases in the euro zone. While its unemployment rate is over 11 percent, it still less than half of the 20 percent plus unemployment rates being experienced by Spain and Greece. In fact if we focus on employment rates, the percentage of prime age workers who have jobs, France is doing considerably better than the United States. Its employment rate is down by less than 1.0 percentage point from the pre-recession level, while in the United States it is down by more than 4.0 percentage points.
And, unlike many countries in the euro zone, France has at least seen some growth over the last five years. By contrast, the countries under the tutelage of the troika (the IMF, the ECB, and the EU) all have lower output today than they did before the crisis. Even worse, the IMF thinks that their potential output is less today than what they actually produced in 2007.
Given this reality, readers of a NYT article on Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade France’s credit rating must have been surprised to read the view of Holger Schmieding, the chief economist at the German Bank, Berenberg:
“there had been ‘hardly any progress at all in France’ and that the country ‘urgently needs to reform its economy if it does not want to fall ever further behind Germany.’ …
The ongoing progress in countries like Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece, Mr. Schmieding said, ‘makes it ever more obvious that France is Europe’s real problem.'”
I guess it’s useful to know that the NYT could find an economist who would trash the state of France’s economy. Of course Mr. Schmieding’s view is probably not shared by many economists since it is not supported by the data.
Most economists probably would not put France as one of the worst basket cases in the euro zone. While its unemployment rate is over 11 percent, it still less than half of the 20 percent plus unemployment rates being experienced by Spain and Greece. In fact if we focus on employment rates, the percentage of prime age workers who have jobs, France is doing considerably better than the United States. Its employment rate is down by less than 1.0 percentage point from the pre-recession level, while in the United States it is down by more than 4.0 percentage points.
And, unlike many countries in the euro zone, France has at least seen some growth over the last five years. By contrast, the countries under the tutelage of the troika (the IMF, the ECB, and the EU) all have lower output today than they did before the crisis. Even worse, the IMF thinks that their potential output is less today than what they actually produced in 2007.
Given this reality, readers of a NYT article on Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade France’s credit rating must have been surprised to read the view of Holger Schmieding, the chief economist at the German Bank, Berenberg:
“there had been ‘hardly any progress at all in France’ and that the country ‘urgently needs to reform its economy if it does not want to fall ever further behind Germany.’ …
The ongoing progress in countries like Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece, Mr. Schmieding said, ‘makes it ever more obvious that France is Europe’s real problem.'”
I guess it’s useful to know that the NYT could find an economist who would trash the state of France’s economy. Of course Mr. Schmieding’s view is probably not shared by many economists since it is not supported by the data.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The news media have been eagerly joining in Republican attacks on President Obama for having broken his pledge that people could keep their insurance if they liked it. Of course people can keep plans in existence as of 2010, if the insurers opt to offer them. However many insurance companies have cancelled these plans because they no longer consider them profitable.
This outcome can be seen as a violation of President Obama’s pledge if people understood him as pledging to effectively take over the industry and require insurers to offer plans even if they were losing money. Is this what the media is claiming was the understanding conveyed by Obama? If so, it should tell us that the public is angry that President Obama is not nationalizing the insurance industry. (President Obama also said that people could keep their doctors. Did people think that Obama was going to prohibit doctors from retiring or dying?)
The news media have been eagerly joining in Republican attacks on President Obama for having broken his pledge that people could keep their insurance if they liked it. Of course people can keep plans in existence as of 2010, if the insurers opt to offer them. However many insurance companies have cancelled these plans because they no longer consider them profitable.
This outcome can be seen as a violation of President Obama’s pledge if people understood him as pledging to effectively take over the industry and require insurers to offer plans even if they were losing money. Is this what the media is claiming was the understanding conveyed by Obama? If so, it should tell us that the public is angry that President Obama is not nationalizing the insurance industry. (President Obama also said that people could keep their doctors. Did people think that Obama was going to prohibit doctors from retiring or dying?)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That would have been a more appropriate headline to a NYT article discussing politicians’ reactions to the troubles facing Obamacare. The piece notes several Democrats expressing concern about the program’s rollout. At one point it refers to Senator Landrieu’s proposed bill which would, “force insurance companies to reissue the health plans they have been canceling by the thousands.”
Such legislation would imply that insurers had to issue plans even if they were losing money on them, for example if the plans were unable to compete with insurance available in the exchanges. This would be an extraordinary intervention in the insurance market. It would have been more appropriate to highlight this extreme action by a senior senator than the actual headline of the piece “despite fumbles, Obama defends health care law.”
Presumably Senator Landrieu does not expect this bill to be taken seriously as legislation and is just introducing it for political purposes. (Copies of the text are not currently available on the web.) However it is not the NYT’s job to assist Landrieu in such political theater.
The article attempts to make the case that the Affordable Care Act is posing a serious problem for Democratic politicians, most importantly by leading to a less than expected victory margin for Terry McAuliffe in the gubernatorial race in Virginia. The evidence for this effect is at best ambiguous. It tells readers that 27 percent of voters identified health care as the most important issue. These people voted for Mr. McAulifie’s opponent by a margin of 49-45. However the same polls found that 45 percent identified the economy as the most important issue. This group broke for the Republican candidate by the same margin. In short, there is not much evidence that the problems with Obamacare played a major role in the Virginia gubernatorial race and there is even less reason to believe that the problems to date will affect the elections in November of 2014.
That would have been a more appropriate headline to a NYT article discussing politicians’ reactions to the troubles facing Obamacare. The piece notes several Democrats expressing concern about the program’s rollout. At one point it refers to Senator Landrieu’s proposed bill which would, “force insurance companies to reissue the health plans they have been canceling by the thousands.”
Such legislation would imply that insurers had to issue plans even if they were losing money on them, for example if the plans were unable to compete with insurance available in the exchanges. This would be an extraordinary intervention in the insurance market. It would have been more appropriate to highlight this extreme action by a senior senator than the actual headline of the piece “despite fumbles, Obama defends health care law.”
Presumably Senator Landrieu does not expect this bill to be taken seriously as legislation and is just introducing it for political purposes. (Copies of the text are not currently available on the web.) However it is not the NYT’s job to assist Landrieu in such political theater.
The article attempts to make the case that the Affordable Care Act is posing a serious problem for Democratic politicians, most importantly by leading to a less than expected victory margin for Terry McAuliffe in the gubernatorial race in Virginia. The evidence for this effect is at best ambiguous. It tells readers that 27 percent of voters identified health care as the most important issue. These people voted for Mr. McAulifie’s opponent by a margin of 49-45. However the same polls found that 45 percent identified the economy as the most important issue. This group broke for the Republican candidate by the same margin. In short, there is not much evidence that the problems with Obamacare played a major role in the Virginia gubernatorial race and there is even less reason to believe that the problems to date will affect the elections in November of 2014.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
