Of course she probably did not know that this is what she is doing in her hypothetical conversation between “Paul” and “Barack,” but that is exactly what she is doing when she touts the lower than expected cost of the Medicare drug benefit. The main reason that the drug benefit cost less than expected is that drug prices in general have gone up less than expected. And, the reason that drug prices have gone up less than expected is that there have been very few new blockbuster drugs in last decade.
This means that even though the industry claims that it is spending more than ever on research, it has much less to show in the form of new drugs than it did 20 years ago. It seems a stretch to blame this lack of innovation on the private insurers offering the Medicare drug benefit, but we can’t question a very serious person with a regular column in the Washington Post.
The rest of this hypothetical discussion is equally confused. Contrary to what it asserts, the vast majority of Democrats did not think it was okay to have just private insurers in the exchanges set up under the Obama plan. They pushed hard to include a good public option. However, they did not have the 60 votes to get a public option through the Senate.
And the comparison of the cost of the Ryan plan to the existing Medicare plan is not a hypothetical. The additional $34 trillion cost that CBO projected for buying Medicare equivalent policies is based on the actual history with Medicare Plus Choice and Medicare Advantage. How many times must this experiment be repeated before its results are accepted?
It is worth noting that there is a simple mechanism for saving large amounts of money under the Medicare system. The government could give beneficiaries a voucher that would allow them to buy into the health care systems of other countries with longer life expectancies than the United States. The beneficiary and the government could split the tens of thousands of dollars in projected annual savings. If the Post was not such an ardently protectionist paper it would support this program
Of course she probably did not know that this is what she is doing in her hypothetical conversation between “Paul” and “Barack,” but that is exactly what she is doing when she touts the lower than expected cost of the Medicare drug benefit. The main reason that the drug benefit cost less than expected is that drug prices in general have gone up less than expected. And, the reason that drug prices have gone up less than expected is that there have been very few new blockbuster drugs in last decade.
This means that even though the industry claims that it is spending more than ever on research, it has much less to show in the form of new drugs than it did 20 years ago. It seems a stretch to blame this lack of innovation on the private insurers offering the Medicare drug benefit, but we can’t question a very serious person with a regular column in the Washington Post.
The rest of this hypothetical discussion is equally confused. Contrary to what it asserts, the vast majority of Democrats did not think it was okay to have just private insurers in the exchanges set up under the Obama plan. They pushed hard to include a good public option. However, they did not have the 60 votes to get a public option through the Senate.
And the comparison of the cost of the Ryan plan to the existing Medicare plan is not a hypothetical. The additional $34 trillion cost that CBO projected for buying Medicare equivalent policies is based on the actual history with Medicare Plus Choice and Medicare Advantage. How many times must this experiment be repeated before its results are accepted?
It is worth noting that there is a simple mechanism for saving large amounts of money under the Medicare system. The government could give beneficiaries a voucher that would allow them to buy into the health care systems of other countries with longer life expectancies than the United States. The beneficiary and the government could split the tens of thousands of dollars in projected annual savings. If the Post was not such an ardently protectionist paper it would support this program
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In its top of the hour news segment (no link) Morning Edition told listeners that the unemployment rate in Germany had fallen to 7.0 percent. This is misleading. The 7.0 percent figure is the official German measure of unemployment. This measure counts part-time workers desiring full-time jobs as being unemployed.
By contrast, the OECD calculates a harmonized unemployment rate that uses a methodology that is comparable to the methodology used in the United States. By this measure, the Germany unemployment rate had already fallen to 6.3 percent by March.
News outlets should present the OECD harmonized measure to their audiences. If they use the German government measure, at the very least they should point out that it is not directly comparable to the U.S. rate.
In its top of the hour news segment (no link) Morning Edition told listeners that the unemployment rate in Germany had fallen to 7.0 percent. This is misleading. The 7.0 percent figure is the official German measure of unemployment. This measure counts part-time workers desiring full-time jobs as being unemployed.
By contrast, the OECD calculates a harmonized unemployment rate that uses a methodology that is comparable to the methodology used in the United States. By this measure, the Germany unemployment rate had already fallen to 6.3 percent by March.
News outlets should present the OECD harmonized measure to their audiences. If they use the German government measure, at the very least they should point out that it is not directly comparable to the U.S. rate.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
No, I don’t have any evidence for that assertion, but neither does David Brooks have any support for the assertion that today’s graduating college seniors, “inherit a ruinous federal debt.”
It’s apparently a day for throwaway lines and I wanted to play too.
No, I don’t have any evidence for that assertion, but neither does David Brooks have any support for the assertion that today’s graduating college seniors, “inherit a ruinous federal debt.”
It’s apparently a day for throwaway lines and I wanted to play too.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The NYT had a front page article on the prospect that house prices will hit a new post-bubble low with the release of new data from the Case-Shiller index. (This refers to nominal house prices. Real house prices are down by about 4 percent from their low in 2009.) The article does not make any reference to the housing bubble.
At this point the bubble is mostly deflated, but real nationwide house prices still must fall back by about 10 percent to get back to their 100 year-long trend. It would have been worth mentioning this trend in this article.
The article also includes a misstatement by Douglas Yearley Jr., the CEO of the builder Toll Brothers. Yearley is quoted as saying, “no one ever renovated the kitchen or redid a room for the kids in a rental.”
This is not true. In cities that give security of tenure to renters, meaning that it is difficult for landlords to kick them out, it is not uncommon for tenants to pay for major repairs/renovations to their units.
The NYT had a front page article on the prospect that house prices will hit a new post-bubble low with the release of new data from the Case-Shiller index. (This refers to nominal house prices. Real house prices are down by about 4 percent from their low in 2009.) The article does not make any reference to the housing bubble.
At this point the bubble is mostly deflated, but real nationwide house prices still must fall back by about 10 percent to get back to their 100 year-long trend. It would have been worth mentioning this trend in this article.
The article also includes a misstatement by Douglas Yearley Jr., the CEO of the builder Toll Brothers. Yearley is quoted as saying, “no one ever renovated the kitchen or redid a room for the kids in a rental.”
This is not true. In cities that give security of tenure to renters, meaning that it is difficult for landlords to kick them out, it is not uncommon for tenants to pay for major repairs/renovations to their units.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
This is worth noting because the NYT is so anxious to tell readers what politicians actually believe about the deficit, Social Security, and other issues. It is much easier to accept that Pat Courtney was actually delighted about her daughter Kathy Hochul’s election to Congress than that most politicians believe the things they say about government policy.
(Hat tip to Ben Ross.)
This is worth noting because the NYT is so anxious to tell readers what politicians actually believe about the deficit, Social Security, and other issues. It is much easier to accept that Pat Courtney was actually delighted about her daughter Kathy Hochul’s election to Congress than that most politicians believe the things they say about government policy.
(Hat tip to Ben Ross.)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In response to my friend, Jared Bernstein, responding to Paul Krugman, let me point out that there was a real simple, non-bureaucratic way in which to allow underwater homeowners to stay in their home and get out from under their crushing mortgage burden.
If we just gave them the option of staying in their home paying the market rent, post foreclosure, it would immediately give them housing security and relieve them of the prospect of paying a crushing mortgage debt. This requires no taxpayer dollars, no government bureaucracy, nor moral harzard, and it would have given immediate relief. This was good enough for conservatives like Desmond Lachmon at the American Enterprise Institute and Andrew Samwick, but not for the folks in the Obama administration.
I can see why people who work for the banks opposed right to rent, but not why anyone else would.
In response to my friend, Jared Bernstein, responding to Paul Krugman, let me point out that there was a real simple, non-bureaucratic way in which to allow underwater homeowners to stay in their home and get out from under their crushing mortgage burden.
If we just gave them the option of staying in their home paying the market rent, post foreclosure, it would immediately give them housing security and relieve them of the prospect of paying a crushing mortgage debt. This requires no taxpayer dollars, no government bureaucracy, nor moral harzard, and it would have given immediate relief. This was good enough for conservatives like Desmond Lachmon at the American Enterprise Institute and Andrew Samwick, but not for the folks in the Obama administration.
I can see why people who work for the banks opposed right to rent, but not why anyone else would.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Alright, they only did the first, telling readers:
“Several [Republican House freshmen] said they had been frustrated with town-hall meetings. That’s been especially true after the House passed a Republican budget that would alter Medicare — shifting seniors to private insurance plans, subsidized by the government, beginning in 2022.”
This paragraph is part of an article that puts the Medicare debate in a he said/she said context: Democrats say that the Republicans will end Medicare, Republicans say they just want to change it.
That would be appropriate language for a gossip column but not for a newspaper. The reality is that the Republican plan ends what everyone thinks of as Medicare, a program through which the government provides insurance for seniors.
Instead, it will hand people a check that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will be grossly inadequate to buy care. The CBO projections show that the Republican plan would increase the cost to seniors of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $39 trillion. Of this additional cost only $5 trillion is savings to the government. The remaining $34 trillion is higher costs to seniors in the form of additional payments to insurers and providers.
The article also erred by not correcting a Republican assertion that their plan would not hurt people already receiving Medicare. Their proposal repeals the Obama health care plan which would have closed the donut hole in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
This sort of article undoubtedly leaves many readers looking forward to the day when the Post is altered.
Alright, they only did the first, telling readers:
“Several [Republican House freshmen] said they had been frustrated with town-hall meetings. That’s been especially true after the House passed a Republican budget that would alter Medicare — shifting seniors to private insurance plans, subsidized by the government, beginning in 2022.”
This paragraph is part of an article that puts the Medicare debate in a he said/she said context: Democrats say that the Republicans will end Medicare, Republicans say they just want to change it.
That would be appropriate language for a gossip column but not for a newspaper. The reality is that the Republican plan ends what everyone thinks of as Medicare, a program through which the government provides insurance for seniors.
Instead, it will hand people a check that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will be grossly inadequate to buy care. The CBO projections show that the Republican plan would increase the cost to seniors of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $39 trillion. Of this additional cost only $5 trillion is savings to the government. The remaining $34 trillion is higher costs to seniors in the form of additional payments to insurers and providers.
The article also erred by not correcting a Republican assertion that their plan would not hurt people already receiving Medicare. Their proposal repeals the Obama health care plan which would have closed the donut hole in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
This sort of article undoubtedly leaves many readers looking forward to the day when the Post is altered.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Bruce Ramsey, a columnist for the Seattle Times, apparently thinks it is really cute to call the U.S. government bonds held by Social Security “IOUs.” That is the only possible explanation for using this unusual term for government bonds in a column that is completely incoherent.
Ramsey apparently thinks that he is giving his readers news by telling them that they don’t have a constitutional right to Social Security. This is of course true, but people do not have a constitutional right to many things that they can reasonably depend on, such as drinkable water, roads they can walk and drive on, not having their income taxed at a 90 percent average rate.
Congress could change laws tomorrow and make it so that we no longer enjoy any of these items, the constitution will not prevent them. But most of us conduct our lives as though Congress will not take such steps, because any Congress that did take away any of these items would likely be voted out of office quickly. Similarly, any Congress that substantially reduced Social Security benefits would likely be looking for new jobs quickly also. So, there is no constitutional right to Social Security benefits; there is just the fact that in a democracy it will be very difficult for Congress to substantially reduce Social Security benefits, since almost everyone either depends on them or expects to depend on them in the future.
But the serious inconsistency problem arises when Ramsey talks about the government bonds held by the Social Security trust fund:
“If you or I had the bonds, we would be trillionaires. But Social Security is the government — and an organization’s IOUs are not an asset to itself.”
Okay, first off, under the law, Social Security is a distinct entity from the government. Mr. Ramsey may not like this fact, but that is the law. This means that the bonds held by Social Security are an asset to Social Security.
Congress can change the law, but as the law is written now, both the bonds and interest on the bonds are assets to Social Security. This means that under current law as long as the trust fund holds bonds, Social Security must pay full benefits. (If Mr. Ramsey knows any member of Congress who plans to vote to default on the bonds held by the trust fund he could do a great service to his readers by publishing their names. Their constituents would probably want to keep this information in mind at election time.)
The inconsistency in Ramsey’s argument is that if we take his “Social Security is the government” line at face value then his article makes no sense.
Let’s say Social Security is the government just like the Defense Department, the Education Department or the State Department. What does it mean to say that Social Security has a deficit? Does the Defense Department have a deficit?
If Social Security is just like any other part of the government then it makes no sense at all to discuss the program as running as a surplus as deficit. The government collects revenue though a variety of sources, including a payroll tax, and it has various expenses. If we take Ramsey’s view of Social Security (ignoring current law) then claiming that Social Security has a deficit or faces a shortfall is nonsense.
Of course that is not the direction that Ramsey goes. He wants to cut benefits because current Social Security tax revenues are less than current benefits. However after he just told us that there is no link between these two — Social Security is the government — there is no reason anyone should care whether the payroll taxes designated for Social Security are bigger or smaller than the benefits paid out.
Essentially what Ramsey wants is to say that Social Security is the government when taxes exceed benefits, so the money cannot be banked for future benefits — but Social Security is not the government when benefits exceed taxes — so then he can say that benefits have to be cut.
It’s dishonest, but hey, it’s not like Social Security can sue him for libel.
Bruce Ramsey, a columnist for the Seattle Times, apparently thinks it is really cute to call the U.S. government bonds held by Social Security “IOUs.” That is the only possible explanation for using this unusual term for government bonds in a column that is completely incoherent.
Ramsey apparently thinks that he is giving his readers news by telling them that they don’t have a constitutional right to Social Security. This is of course true, but people do not have a constitutional right to many things that they can reasonably depend on, such as drinkable water, roads they can walk and drive on, not having their income taxed at a 90 percent average rate.
Congress could change laws tomorrow and make it so that we no longer enjoy any of these items, the constitution will not prevent them. But most of us conduct our lives as though Congress will not take such steps, because any Congress that did take away any of these items would likely be voted out of office quickly. Similarly, any Congress that substantially reduced Social Security benefits would likely be looking for new jobs quickly also. So, there is no constitutional right to Social Security benefits; there is just the fact that in a democracy it will be very difficult for Congress to substantially reduce Social Security benefits, since almost everyone either depends on them or expects to depend on them in the future.
But the serious inconsistency problem arises when Ramsey talks about the government bonds held by the Social Security trust fund:
“If you or I had the bonds, we would be trillionaires. But Social Security is the government — and an organization’s IOUs are not an asset to itself.”
Okay, first off, under the law, Social Security is a distinct entity from the government. Mr. Ramsey may not like this fact, but that is the law. This means that the bonds held by Social Security are an asset to Social Security.
Congress can change the law, but as the law is written now, both the bonds and interest on the bonds are assets to Social Security. This means that under current law as long as the trust fund holds bonds, Social Security must pay full benefits. (If Mr. Ramsey knows any member of Congress who plans to vote to default on the bonds held by the trust fund he could do a great service to his readers by publishing their names. Their constituents would probably want to keep this information in mind at election time.)
The inconsistency in Ramsey’s argument is that if we take his “Social Security is the government” line at face value then his article makes no sense.
Let’s say Social Security is the government just like the Defense Department, the Education Department or the State Department. What does it mean to say that Social Security has a deficit? Does the Defense Department have a deficit?
If Social Security is just like any other part of the government then it makes no sense at all to discuss the program as running as a surplus as deficit. The government collects revenue though a variety of sources, including a payroll tax, and it has various expenses. If we take Ramsey’s view of Social Security (ignoring current law) then claiming that Social Security has a deficit or faces a shortfall is nonsense.
Of course that is not the direction that Ramsey goes. He wants to cut benefits because current Social Security tax revenues are less than current benefits. However after he just told us that there is no link between these two — Social Security is the government — there is no reason anyone should care whether the payroll taxes designated for Social Security are bigger or smaller than the benefits paid out.
Essentially what Ramsey wants is to say that Social Security is the government when taxes exceed benefits, so the money cannot be banked for future benefits — but Social Security is not the government when benefits exceed taxes — so then he can say that benefits have to be cut.
It’s dishonest, but hey, it’s not like Social Security can sue him for libel.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
New York Times columnist Joe Nocera told the Democrats that they should take Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare seriously because the country will need something like this to restrain costs. In fact, the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office was 180 degrees at odds with this view. It projections showed that the Ryan plan would increase the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $34 trillion over the program’s 75-year planning period.
Nocera also asserted the need for means-testing Medicare. Unless his intention is to sharply reduce benefits for people earning in the neighborhood of $60,000 a year, this route offers small savings.
The United States already pays more than twice as much per person for its health care as the average for other wealthy countries. This gap is projected to grow in the decades ahead. If the United States got its health care costs more in line with the rest of the world or allowed free trade in health care, then there would be little problem with paying for Medicare.
New York Times columnist Joe Nocera told the Democrats that they should take Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare seriously because the country will need something like this to restrain costs. In fact, the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office was 180 degrees at odds with this view. It projections showed that the Ryan plan would increase the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies by $34 trillion over the program’s 75-year planning period.
Nocera also asserted the need for means-testing Medicare. Unless his intention is to sharply reduce benefits for people earning in the neighborhood of $60,000 a year, this route offers small savings.
The United States already pays more than twice as much per person for its health care as the average for other wealthy countries. This gap is projected to grow in the decades ahead. If the United States got its health care costs more in line with the rest of the world or allowed free trade in health care, then there would be little problem with paying for Medicare.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
When a powerful politician makes a serious error in discussing public policy it is known as a “gaffe.” It is the sort of thing that reporters are supposed to call to the public’s attention, pressing the politician to explain if he/she really doesn’t understand the issue on which they were speaking.
This leaves readers wondering why the Congressional Quarterly (no link) didn’t call attention to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s obvious error when it quoted him saying:
“Last week, the Social Security trustees issued a report saying Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure.”
Of course the trustees did not say that “Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure,” they said:
“Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing.”
This is a crucial distinction. McConnell’s statement implies that the trustees said that the programs had to be changed in some fundamental way. The trustees statement in fact means that at some point that the programs will either need more revenue or that benefits have to be cut.
This would be like driving from Chicago to Detroit and determining that at some point you will need more gas to complete the trip. That would mean stopping at a gas station and refilling your tank. By contrast, McConnell’s comment implies that the car is about to breakdown and will not make the trip.
CQ should have called attention to McConnell’s misrepresentation of the trustees report and pressed the Senator to determine whether he really does not understand the trustees statement or whether he is deliberately misrepresenting it for political purposes.
Hat tip to Paul Van de Water.
When a powerful politician makes a serious error in discussing public policy it is known as a “gaffe.” It is the sort of thing that reporters are supposed to call to the public’s attention, pressing the politician to explain if he/she really doesn’t understand the issue on which they were speaking.
This leaves readers wondering why the Congressional Quarterly (no link) didn’t call attention to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s obvious error when it quoted him saying:
“Last week, the Social Security trustees issued a report saying Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure.”
Of course the trustees did not say that “Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable under their current structure,” they said:
“Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing.”
This is a crucial distinction. McConnell’s statement implies that the trustees said that the programs had to be changed in some fundamental way. The trustees statement in fact means that at some point that the programs will either need more revenue or that benefits have to be cut.
This would be like driving from Chicago to Detroit and determining that at some point you will need more gas to complete the trip. That would mean stopping at a gas station and refilling your tank. By contrast, McConnell’s comment implies that the car is about to breakdown and will not make the trip.
CQ should have called attention to McConnell’s misrepresentation of the trustees report and pressed the Senator to determine whether he really does not understand the trustees statement or whether he is deliberately misrepresenting it for political purposes.
Hat tip to Paul Van de Water.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
