As Reagan once said there he goes again. Sumner is accusing Obama of lying. Which is a little ironic.
"The president defended his proposal by saying that, for high-income taxpayers, “the tax rates would just go back to where they were under President Clinton.” The president reminded his listeners that the economy grew at a rapid clip during the Clinton years, adding tens of millions of new jobs."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=24498
Where exactly is the lie? Well if you believe, Sumner, it's because in saying they will go back to Clinton rates omits that there is a new investment tax under ACA. I still don't get why this makes such a big difference. I mean if that's a lie it's nothing compared with the whoppers Sumner tells all the time. Note that Obama's basic point is not debunked even if you factor in a 2.8% tax to fund Obamacare-recall that the law was only declared constitutional because Judge Roberts decided it is a tax not a fee.
Still if you admit that growth was strong in the 90s despite a 39.6% top marginal rate is it so implausible to argue that it would have still grown even if there had been an additional 2.8% tax giving the rich a 42.4% tax? I mean is it believable that the we wouldn't have had a boom based on a difference of 2.8%? Especially when you recall that the capital gains tax was higher during the Clinton years which more than compensates for not having the ACA tax
"President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years."
Actually, this claim you keep hearing is also way overdone. Sumner is quoting from an NBC story that is getting a lot of mileage. Yet despite all the incendiary talk about how Obama 'knew this for 3 years and never admitted to it' ignores the fact that the White House spoke openly about this back in 2010 and there is actually nothing new about this story-nor is it the great scandal it's being billed as.
Note how Republican scandals are always about 'how long have they known?!'-I mean this was a big preoccupation of the phony Benghazi scandal as well as the fake IRS Tea Party scandal-'who in the White House knew this and when exactly?!' and now the same thing with Obamacare. Also, GOP fake scandals always have to have a scapegoat who's blamed for everything-one hapless individual is the evil one behind it all. So in Benghazi, it was Susan Rice, in IRSGate it was Lois Lerner, now in Obamacare it's Kathleen Sebelius. The facts are usually a lot more mundane:
"This all sounds very ominous until you consider that the naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/28/2850061/wrong-story-obama-knowing-health-care-policy-cancelled/
This was covered in great detail in 2010, the last time Republicans tried to make a mountain out of this by confusing an distorting the facts.
"The goal of grandfather regulations is to allow a consumer to keep their existing policies, while also ensuring that there are some basic patient protections built into these plans. If insurers make changes that significantly burden enrollees with lower benefits and increased costs they have to come into compliance with all consumer protections. Therefore, policies lose their grandfathered status if insurers cancel coverage when a person becomes ill, impose lifetime limits on benefits, eliminate all benefits for a particular condition and reduce the cap for covered services each year, among other changes. (In fact, in November of 2010, the federal government loosened some of these standards.)"
"The president defended his proposal by saying that, for high-income taxpayers, “the tax rates would just go back to where they were under President Clinton.” The president reminded his listeners that the economy grew at a rapid clip during the Clinton years, adding tens of millions of new jobs."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=24498
Where exactly is the lie? Well if you believe, Sumner, it's because in saying they will go back to Clinton rates omits that there is a new investment tax under ACA. I still don't get why this makes such a big difference. I mean if that's a lie it's nothing compared with the whoppers Sumner tells all the time. Note that Obama's basic point is not debunked even if you factor in a 2.8% tax to fund Obamacare-recall that the law was only declared constitutional because Judge Roberts decided it is a tax not a fee.
Still if you admit that growth was strong in the 90s despite a 39.6% top marginal rate is it so implausible to argue that it would have still grown even if there had been an additional 2.8% tax giving the rich a 42.4% tax? I mean is it believable that the we wouldn't have had a boom based on a difference of 2.8%? Especially when you recall that the capital gains tax was higher during the Clinton years which more than compensates for not having the ACA tax
"President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years."
Actually, this claim you keep hearing is also way overdone. Sumner is quoting from an NBC story that is getting a lot of mileage. Yet despite all the incendiary talk about how Obama 'knew this for 3 years and never admitted to it' ignores the fact that the White House spoke openly about this back in 2010 and there is actually nothing new about this story-nor is it the great scandal it's being billed as.
Note how Republican scandals are always about 'how long have they known?!'-I mean this was a big preoccupation of the phony Benghazi scandal as well as the fake IRS Tea Party scandal-'who in the White House knew this and when exactly?!' and now the same thing with Obamacare. Also, GOP fake scandals always have to have a scapegoat who's blamed for everything-one hapless individual is the evil one behind it all. So in Benghazi, it was Susan Rice, in IRSGate it was Lois Lerner, now in Obamacare it's Kathleen Sebelius. The facts are usually a lot more mundane:
"This all sounds very ominous until you consider that the naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations."
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/28/2850061/wrong-story-obama-knowing-health-care-policy-cancelled/
This was covered in great detail in 2010, the last time Republicans tried to make a mountain out of this by confusing an distorting the facts.
"The goal of grandfather regulations is to allow a consumer to keep their existing policies, while also ensuring that there are some basic patient protections built into these plans. If insurers make changes that significantly burden enrollees with lower benefits and increased costs they have to come into compliance with all consumer protections. Therefore, policies lose their grandfathered status if insurers cancel coverage when a person becomes ill, impose lifetime limits on benefits, eliminate all benefits for a particular condition and reduce the cap for covered services each year, among other changes. (In fact, in November of 2010, the federal government loosened some of these standards.)"
"So yes, individuals can keep the plans they have if those plans remain largely the same. But individuals receiving cancellation notices will have a choice of enrolling in subsidized insurance in the exchanges and will probably end up paying less for more coverage. Those who don’t qualify for the tax credits will be paying more for comprehensive insurance that will be there for them when they become sick (and could actually end up spending less for health care since more services will now be covered). They will also no longer be part of a system in which the young and healthy are offered cheap insurance premiums because their sick neighbors are priced out or denied coverage. That, after all, is the whole point of reform."
While he delights in throwing around the word 'liar' Sumner finishes off with his own whopper.
" I’ve had nothing to say about the computer “glitches” because that’s not the issue. The issue is and has always been the fact that Obamacare outlaws the only kind of insurance that makes any sense—catastrophic insurance. Glad to see people are finally waking up to that fact."
This is why I give Sumner credit for being shrewd. He is usually too smart to go after the low hanging fruit like razzing about computer glitches. Yet for all this, what he says about catastrophic insurance is false on two counts. First of all, Obamacare did not eliminate it.
Secondly, no one has been converted to the idea that only catastrophic makes sense. All the hewing and crying isn't any kind of enlightenment but just because of the computer glitches.
Mike, why is catastrophic insurance being the only insurance not making sense?
ReplyDeleteIn every other insurance industry, catastrophic insurance is norm and standard. Your car insurance company doesn't pay for your new car at the dealership. Nor does it pay for your oil change, new tires and whatnot.
To those people who have pre-existing conditions, I say, lets have a public option (I hate the term "single payer" An option should be what public medicine is.
Weirdly, i think the British system (socialized medicine with private healthcare for those who are willing to pay) is better than the Canadian system on this. The Canadian system has "private" doctors billing the government for payment. But as long as they accept government funds, they are prohibited from taking private money to those who want to leap in front of the queue. Thats why I shudder whenever I hear the words 'single payer" from a liberal
Actually Edward what I questioned is the claim that catastrophic insurance being outlawed due to ACA.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems clear is that many people think it's wrong for anyone in a wealthy country like ours to have no health insurance. Now what's ironic about Obamacare is that while the GOP is now full of bile for it it's basically their plan-going back to Nixon. ACA was always the alternative to 'single payer'-because many like you shuddered at the words.
Now that we have done the Nixon-Romney plan they now hate it. The British system as you describe it sounds pretty good. Still while 'single payer' may bring to mind all kinds of bad connotations, Medicare is a single payer plan for old people and it has successfully guaranteed healthcare for all the elderly.
Obamacare certainly is a system with pluses and minuses but at least it insures 23 million people who previously weren't. Thanks for stopping by Edward. Your comments are welcome.
As for catastrophic insurance if we are limited to that is there necessarily very high deductibles? Interestingly, the much maligned Obamacare website specifically discusses catasrophic insurance-Sumner may not be correct that it is now outlawed.
https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-buy-a-catastrophic-plan/