Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Wrong on Obamacare, WSJ editorial board searches for new spin
Give Back that Pulitzer, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
By Jonathan Chait
The recent slowdown in health-care costs is one of those facts, like climate change or the rapid growth after Bill Clinton raised taxes, that flummoxes American conservatism. The slowdown of health-care costs is one of the most important developments in American politics. The long-term deficit crisis — those scary charts Paul Ryan likes to hold up, with federal spending soaring to absurd levels in a grim socialist dystopian future — all assume the cost of health care will continue to rise faster than the cost of other things. If that changes, the entire premise of the American debate changes. And there’s a lot of evidence to suggest it is changing — health-care costs have slowed dramatically, and experts believe it’s happening for non-temporary reasons.
The general conservative response to date has involved ignoring the trend, or perhaps dismissing it as a temporary, recession-induced dip likely to reverse itself. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal editorial page offered up what may be the new conservative fallback position: Okay, health-care costs are slowing down, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the huge new health-care reform law. “It increasingly looks as if ObamaCare passed amid a national correction in the health markets,” the Journal now asserts, “that no one in Congress or the White House understood.” It’s another one of those huge, crazy coincidences!
Of course, it’s not just that the Journal didn’t predict the health-care cost slowdown. The Journal insisted it couldn’t possibly happen. Indeed, it insisted that Obamacare would destroy — was already destroying — any possible hope for a health-care cost correction, and would instead necessarily lead to a massive increase in health-care inflation.
In a series of hysterical, freedom-at-dusk editorials which were, unbelievably, awarded a Pulitzer Prize for commentary, the Journal expounded extensively on this belief. Health-care costs were exploding in Massachusetts, the editorial bemoaned on March 2, 2010 — “merely a preview of what the entire country will face if Democrats succeed with their plan to pound ObamaCare into law in anything like its current form.” It continued on March 20 of that year, “Once the health-care markets are put through Mr. Obama's de facto nationalization, costs will further explode.” (Not may, will.) On June 11, another editorial complained that Medicare Advantage, the privatized version of Medicare whose overpayments Obama eliminated, “might eventually liberate the U.S. health market from government price controls,” except that Democrats were “intent on killing” it.
- more -
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/give-back-that-pulitzer-journal-editorial-page.html
By Jonathan Chait
The recent slowdown in health-care costs is one of those facts, like climate change or the rapid growth after Bill Clinton raised taxes, that flummoxes American conservatism. The slowdown of health-care costs is one of the most important developments in American politics. The long-term deficit crisis — those scary charts Paul Ryan likes to hold up, with federal spending soaring to absurd levels in a grim socialist dystopian future — all assume the cost of health care will continue to rise faster than the cost of other things. If that changes, the entire premise of the American debate changes. And there’s a lot of evidence to suggest it is changing — health-care costs have slowed dramatically, and experts believe it’s happening for non-temporary reasons.
The general conservative response to date has involved ignoring the trend, or perhaps dismissing it as a temporary, recession-induced dip likely to reverse itself. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal editorial page offered up what may be the new conservative fallback position: Okay, health-care costs are slowing down, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the huge new health-care reform law. “It increasingly looks as if ObamaCare passed amid a national correction in the health markets,” the Journal now asserts, “that no one in Congress or the White House understood.” It’s another one of those huge, crazy coincidences!
Of course, it’s not just that the Journal didn’t predict the health-care cost slowdown. The Journal insisted it couldn’t possibly happen. Indeed, it insisted that Obamacare would destroy — was already destroying — any possible hope for a health-care cost correction, and would instead necessarily lead to a massive increase in health-care inflation.
In a series of hysterical, freedom-at-dusk editorials which were, unbelievably, awarded a Pulitzer Prize for commentary, the Journal expounded extensively on this belief. Health-care costs were exploding in Massachusetts, the editorial bemoaned on March 2, 2010 — “merely a preview of what the entire country will face if Democrats succeed with their plan to pound ObamaCare into law in anything like its current form.” It continued on March 20 of that year, “Once the health-care markets are put through Mr. Obama's de facto nationalization, costs will further explode.” (Not may, will.) On June 11, another editorial complained that Medicare Advantage, the privatized version of Medicare whose overpayments Obama eliminated, “might eventually liberate the U.S. health market from government price controls,” except that Democrats were “intent on killing” it.
- more -
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/give-back-that-pulitzer-journal-editorial-page.html
This is the WSJ editorial board that was impressed with Palin on economics.
Pelosi Credits Obamacare For Lowering Deficit, Health Costs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841377
Krugman called it in 2011:
<...>
What would real action on health look like? Well, it might include things like giving an independent commission the power to ensure that Medicare only pays for procedures with real medical value; rewarding health care providers for delivering quality care rather than simply paying a fixed sum for every procedure; limiting the tax deductibility of private insurance plans; and so on.
And what do these things have in common? They’re all in last year’s health reform bill.
That’s why I say that Mr. Obama gets too little credit. He has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president. And if his opponents were serious about those deficits, they’d be backing his actions and calling for more; instead, they’ve been screaming about death panels.
Now, even if we manage to rein in health costs, we’ll still have a long-run deficit problem — a fundamental gap between the government’s spending and the amount it collects in taxes. So what should be done?
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html
What would real action on health look like? Well, it might include things like giving an independent commission the power to ensure that Medicare only pays for procedures with real medical value; rewarding health care providers for delivering quality care rather than simply paying a fixed sum for every procedure; limiting the tax deductibility of private insurance plans; and so on.
And what do these things have in common? They’re all in last year’s health reform bill.
That’s why I say that Mr. Obama gets too little credit. He has done more to rein in long-run deficits than any previous president. And if his opponents were serious about those deficits, they’d be backing his actions and calling for more; instead, they’ve been screaming about death panels.
Now, even if we manage to rein in health costs, we’ll still have a long-run deficit problem — a fundamental gap between the government’s spending and the amount it collects in taxes. So what should be done?
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html
What should be done next recently happened, including raising taxes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845730
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
(I have written in detail on other thread about this, so won't write it again.)
But that is with UNLIMITED NO CAP, and NO exclusion in new company due to preexisting
selfemployed family plan
2012 I could NOT switch because of preexisting
2013 I was able due to early launch in NJ by some companies
and instead of 50/50 til met, its 70-30, so any bills in 2013-2014 will also save that 20%.
truly amazing
100% thanks to President Obama.
