So Jerry made a statement "Might it be to hide the disasters in the economy, in health care, in foreign policy? " The it being the whole transgender national argument, which we have discussed to death. So here Jerry furthered his argument here:
"Perhaps you're right that we don't have a disaster on our hands. The official unemployment rate is down, but of course the "real" unemployment rate remains over 10%, and we have the lowest labor force participation rate since the Carter years. Obama has essentially doubled the national debt and covered it up by having the Federal Reserve print trillions of dollars in new money out of thin air. GDP growth is way behind what it should be, and bears no resemblance to any real "recovery."I'll start this with the usual admonishment... Sources?
In healthcare, rather than saving $2500 per family, a recent study found that costs have gone UP by roughly $4800 per family. Whether that counts the huge increase in deductible expenses, essentially making the "insurance" part of Obamacare a moot point, or not I do not know. We do know that a federal judge has now ruled that most of the Obamacare subsidies currently being paid are unconstitutional, and we also know that insurance companies are planning increases anywhere from 10% to 40%, and that the penalties for not having insurance go up next year. All of these will combine to make the "affordable care act" a more obvious disaster than it already is – anything BUT affordable.
Foreign policy matters. ISIS strikes in Paris, Brussels, San Bernadino, and is committing genocide across Syria and Iraq. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are struggling to keep a viable government while Obama's great achievement in the Middle East is to guarantee that Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and gets an extra hundred billion dollars from us to help out.
Is there any doubt that race relations have deteriorated rather than gotten better?
Let us put this another way: where is there NOT a disaster? "
46 comments:
Watch Fox news?
The Republican Party in terms of it's appeal employs a metaphorical three legged stool. The three legs are national security, social issues, and the economy. When one recedes in importance and becomes played out, emphasis shifts to the other two. Right now, after a long ride, social issues are played out. The Republicans are about to nominate a multiply married real estate bankrupt with only the most superficial interest in the moral values that have driven so many Republican voters in the past. National security as an issue also seems played out. Despite a lot of high talk, Mr. Trump seems to have the instincts of an isolationist. His idea that our interests aren't protected by entities like NATO and other international entities and agreements is reminiscent of Chamberain's lack of concern for the fate of Czechoslovakia, a country he saw as far away and of which Mr. C said he knew nothing. That leaves concerns about the economy, the real driving force of the Trump candidacy.
So, it's not a question of anyone, any Democrat, or the media deflecting from one issue to another. If the events of the last year have taught us anything, it's that establishment media and politicians have lost the power to set the agenda. From here on out, it's Donald Trump, and those who react to him individually and effectively who will set the priorities for our future and our lives.
--Hiram
HIram, that's a pretty good analysis, but I think there is a shorter route to the same conclusion. That is, a sizable plurality of folks are revolting against the rampant political correctness and media manipulation holding them down while the government does "stupid stuff" that not only doesn't help but seems to make things worse. Trump as the nihilist, and it doesn't matter what he stands for, only what he stands against. That's worrisome. Even though there are "easy" fixes in my mind, doesn't mean that Trump, an all-Republican federal government, or ANY government, can find them.
Trump as the nihilist,
To me, part of the appeal of Trump isn't a nihilist, and he is someone who rejects the nihilism that has been prevailing so long and is now worn out in the Republican Party. If Republicans had wanted to go down further on that path they would have picked Cruz. No, Trump is a negotiator, a dealmaker, the very same mindset the Republican congressional party has rejected for the last 8 years.
I haven't read Ayn Rand (although I have watched the movie "The Fountainhead" a TCM staple) but from I do understand of her writings, her heroes are not the nihilists. Like Howard Roark, Trump is a builder or at least he was at one point in his past, and that's what people want from him as a leader.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Telling us to watch FOX news is about as bad as when Laurie tells us to read Mother Jones.
The truth is where you find it. Even in the most biased sources, you can usually carve out a bit of truth. Our disagreements tend to come in two forms-- either one of us is drawing different conclusions from the same fact, e.g. the economy is good/terrible because of 1% GDP growth, or we are drawing our conclusions from two different sets of facts, e.g. the economy is terrible because real unemployment is 11% vs. the economy is good because official unemployment is 5.4%. Both are true, both conclusions reasonable, but one /should/ be more "true" than the other.
Mother Jones is a very fact based publication. Maybe when I am off from school this summer I should tutor you on how to distinguish between fact and opinion. Maybe if you read more news with a viewpoint it wouldn't be so hard for you.
Here is a link on the accuracy of Fox news:
FOX's file
60% of the facts checked on Fox were rated as false.
Did you note in the poll I quoted earlier, it was republicans that had their facts all wrong on the state of the economy?
Laurie, I thought for certain you would be quoting Politifact, a notoriously left-wing "fact checker." This one is different, but anybody that wants to fact-check Fox News has, I assume, a left-wing outlook and finds "lies" where others can see at least some underlying truth. The trick, as you say, is to have enough knowledge and experience to be able to sort out the truth from whatever you read or see. I usually find that, if a liberal slant and conservative slant both start from the same basic news item, it's true, and the the bias shows up in how it is presented.
Laurie,
You can deny the bias of your sources as long as you want. We have time.
Allsides Economy / Jobs
EPI Missing Workers
CNBC Real Unemployment Rate
US News Real Leaders
ACA Premium Changes
Fact Check Sky Rocketing Premiums
John, without Laurie's sources and viewpoints our discussion would be poorer. And I believe she is smart enough to sort out the truth from her sources.
Most of the stufff I read has a progressive point of view, I think that is slightly different than bias. I know trying to understand the difference between fact and opinion is hard for you, John, but keep trying I think you can get it.
I think Kevin Drum is highly reliable in terms of facts used to support his opinions. When he writes about inflation his facts with his fancy graphs are kind of boring so I just skim right through to his interpretation that the rate is low and not a good reason to raise interest rates. This is still kind of boring, but more worthwhile to me than facts with no context or interpretaion. Many of his facts and opinions are more interesting and once in awhile I even disagree with his opinion, but not often.
Drum writes fairly frequently about Obamacare which is where I haved picked up my opinion that the program is working well.
2 Engineering Degrees, an MBA, ~4 Statistics course and dealing in them daily for ~25 years... Maybe someday I will be able to tell the difference between Facts, Opinions and the Misuse of Facts/Statistics... Maybe... :-)
fact
1:something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
2:a true piece of information
opinion
1:a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing
2:advice from someone with special knowledge : advice from an expert
3:a formal statement by a judge, court, etc., explaining the reasons a decision was made according to laws or rules
Using "Facts" Poorly
The challenge with opinion/articles is that folks typically only share with you the "facts" or "analysis" that supports their "opinion", so of course they seem logical and rational... Unless you are willing to look for another opinion that shows different facts, opinions and analysis.
A simple example is that spending more money on schools delivers worse results. Jerry can clearly show this with facts and data. And yet the meaning would be very incorrect. The question as always is are we willing to truly question out own opinions and those of our favorite opinion sources???
Thanks for the reference, John. It is indeed true that, statistically, more money for schools means poorer results. The same analysis shows that results for the same per-pupil spending differ by almost 2:1. Therefore the correct interpretation of the statistic is that education money doesn't buy results, but that it must be HOW that money is spent.
And again, I reiterate: "Our disagreements tend to come in two forms-- either one of us is drawing different conclusions from the same fact, e.g. the economy is good/terrible because of 1% GDP growth, or we are drawing our conclusions from two different sets of facts, e.g. the economy is terrible because real unemployment is 11% vs. the economy is good because official unemployment is 5.4%. Both are true, both conclusions reasonable, but one /should/ be more 'true' than the other."
Hopefully these discussions can lead us to similar conclusions or at least to an acknowledgement that the other side isn't being totally irrational. Especially if I am on the other side. :-)
I am pretty sure on most issues Drum looks at the facts from what he considers a good source and than forms his opinion regarding these facts. Saves me a lot of trouble in understanding the issues of the day (he is much more knowledgeable on most topics he writes about and he always provides links to his sources.) I strongly recommend his blog, which is why I link it frequently.
I am also sure that if you did research you would find that most of the facts support my opinion that Obamacae is overall working quite well (in insuring people and meeting enrollment and cost goals etc.) Jerry's opinion that it is a disaster is not supported by the facts.
Laurie,
Drum has a liberal leaning that skews his perception and analysis. It means that he sees facts that support his views, creates analysis around them and reports this... And of course you see him as a good balanced source that resonates with you. He is much like you in what he sees, what he values and how he interprets it. How could you see him any other way?
My advice as always is do not put all your eggs in the one basket and keep thinking / analyzing for yourself.
And most importantly remember that my college educated professional Mother would say the same thing you did. "Rush looks at the facts from what he considers a good source and then forms his opinion regarding these facts. Saves me a lot of trouble in understanding the issues of the day (he is much more knowledgeable on most topics he talks about and he always provides links to his sources.) I strongly recommend his news show, which is why I mention it frequently."
Do you want to sound like that?
Laurie, that you believe the facts support your opinion is your opinion. Those like me with an opposite opinion have facts which WE believe support that opinion. Only when all the facts are brought forward by both sides and questioned-- almost like a court of law but thankfully without the lawyers-- can we expect to pursue the global truth of the matter and at that point, one of the opinions might change. This happens about as often as courts arrive at the truth, but we should try.
On the Obamacare issue, there is one fact that you cannot deny. I LOST my insurance because of Obamacare. Marvelous policy, subsidized by my employer. When Obamacare passed, the coverage mandates forced the company to dump us on the private market, with a small subsidy. My premiums doubled and the quality of coverage was much lower. From a personal standpoint, Obamacare is a disaster. And everything I see says that the "good," whatever it may be, is seriously outweighed by the bad, just as conservatives up and down the line predicted it would be.
"...the coverage mandates forced the company to dump us on the private market..."
Can you explain this, please?
Joel
Sure. The company offered a very good insurance plan, with low costs to the employee and a subsidy by the company. Obamacare includes mandates that every insurance policy must cover-- things like mental health, maternity benefits (for 60-year-old bachelor farmers as well) and other things that drove up the cost of the policies we had, and the company had two choices-- radically raise their costs or radically increase the employees' share. They chose to keep their subsidy the same but give it to us directly and force us onto the private marketplace. Of course THOSE policies also had to meet all of the Obamacare coverage requirements, so the cost, even with the company subsidy, was double or even higher than what we had been paying. And because of the high deductibles, our out of pocket expenses meant our total yearly spend went up even more. We're lucky enough to be able to afford it and Obamacare requires us to buy it or pay a penalty, but it is TERRIBLE legislation and needs to die.
So, because your company chose profit over happy employees, it's Obamacare's fault?
Of course, if we had a national health care system, your employer wouldn't be involved in your medical decisions at all.
Joel
Yes, Joel, it is Obamacare's fault. The company and the employees were perfectly happy with the health care plan they had. They liked it and want to keep it. Under Obamacare, that was made impossible.
Of course, if we had a national health care system...
None of us would have a say in the program or benefits we have... Seems like another good reason to listen to Trees... Or if you like lyrics better...
"None of us would have a say in the program or benefits we have..."
Do we not live in a representative democracy? We would ALL have a say. As it stands now, precious few of us have a say in our health benefits.
Joel
Somehow I would rather trust myself and a contract I make with my doctor and insurance company, than agree to what a majority vote of the US Senate might provide me as far as medical care. Next think you will be demanding a say in what I eat.
"We would ALL have a say."
Do you think you had a say in our governments decision to invade Iraq?
Do you think with social security, that you have a say in what you "save" for retirement, where it is invested, how much you will get, when you can get it back, etc? If so I challenge you to not pay the ~15.5% of your compensation that normally goes to payroll taxes and see what happens.
Yes.
I believe we have the government we deserve and I vote for people who I think will do better.
Joel
Well if your people win and they implement national single payer healthcare.
You will be bound by the rules of that one program with little opportunity to shop around for programs that fit your needs better or offer better quality.
When you look for a new job you will still have the same insurance / network for better or worse... I hope this works out for you.
I like the ability to make some of my own decisions...
"When you look for a new job you will still have the same insurance / network for better or worse..."
Thank heavens! To be able to find a job that is a better fit and more in line with a person's natural abilities...all without having to worry about what to do if they should get sick in the meantime. Just imagine the possibilities if people were freely able to move to jobs and careers that they love.
I'm sure bean counters like you don't understand that.
Do you think workforce mobility is a bad thing?
Joel
"Thank heavens! To be able to find a job that is a better fit and more in line with a person's natural abilities...all without having to worry about what to do if they should get sick in the meantime. Just imagine the possibilities if people were freely able to move to jobs and careers that they love."
This is precisely how a labor market is supposed to work -- the matching of available jobs to the interests and skills of workers without the horrible distortion of health care getting in the way.
How many people do you know who have picked one job over another because of concerns over benefits? I know I've done it, and I know a lot of other people who have done it.
"You will be bound by the rules of that one program with little opportunity to shop around for programs that fit your needs better or offer better quality."
Medicare recipients today have literally thousands of options for supplemental plans that go above and beyond the base coverage level. That's not going to go away.
"Medicare recipients today have literally thousands of options for supplemental plans…"
Those [few] supplements are made necessary by the nature of Medicare, and are fairly rigidly bound by Medicare rules. It is not unreasonable to believe that turning the whole thing over to private enterprise, possibly with a no-strings government subsidy, would be better.
One of the most common features of Republican plans to "replace Obama care" is health insurance portability between jobs. It not only makes the labor market more free and the health insurance marketplace more competitive, but it reduces the problem of "pre-existing conditions."
Joel and Sean,
Please remember that many of my friends and family are self employed.
They already have the freedom to do anything they want because they buy and pay for their own coverage. Why is it that you think "you NEED someone else to pay for your insurance"? Be it an employer or the tax payers?
Pre-ACA you had the freedom to buy any policy you wanted from pretty much any provider.
"Why is it that you think "you NEED someone else to pay for your insurance"?"
I've never suggested this. What I have done is point out that your doom-and-gloom on Medicare for all is overblown. Again, please confine your comments to things I have actually said and stop putting words in my mouth.
"Pre-ACA you had the freedom to buy any policy you wanted from pretty much any provider."
You are so underinformed on health care you would be better off keeping your mouth shut, because this ain't even remotely close to being correct.
"This is precisely how a labor market is supposed to work -- the matching of available jobs to the interests and skills of workers without the horrible distortion of health care getting in the way.
How many people do you know who have picked one job over another because of concerns over benefits? I know I've done it, and I know a lot of other people who have done it."
Sean,
Yes you did say that... And my family and friends were happy with their pre-ACA policies and coverage. ACA has just forced them to get a different policy and pay more.
A lot of them used to have really high deductible policies. Meaning they paid their own healthcare bills unless cancer, heart attack, other occurred.
"Yes you did say that."
Nowhere in the statement you quoted did I suggest that someone else has to pay for anyone else's insurance. The point of the statement I quoted was that the linkage between employment and health care is a huge distortion to labor markets.
"And my family and friends were happy with their pre-ACA policies and coverage. ACA has just forced them to get a different policy and pay more."
OK, well that still doesn't mean that "you had the freedom to buy any policy you wanted from pretty much any provider." Health insurance was (and is) highly regulated by state, which placed regulations on what was covered and who could sell it.
Sean you said that you know people "who have picked one job over another because of concerns over benefits". My point is that this was their choice to do so, it is not a "huge distortion"... It is just normal job selection and marketing criteria.
Those people could have maintained private insurance and had more flexibility, however they chose the job with the duties, benefits and pay that maximized their personal benefit.
Now I am fine with getting the companies out of the insurance business and having us buy direct. Definitely a much better option than single payer.
Okay I stand corrected...
"you had the freedom to buy any policy you wanted from pretty much any provider that was allowed in the State."
I am fine with selling across state lines... Not sure why it is not allowed?
why it is not allowed?
Two things. It isn't allowed, and it wouldn't happen. You would not be able to buy a Florida policy in Minnesota because the Florida health insurance market is different from Minnesota's. What you would be able to buy is an insurance policy tailored by Florida insurers written according to Florida laws to the Minnesota market. So to begin with, Minnesota health insurance policy would be set by Florida legislators who you didn't vote for, who have no stake in serving your interest, who do have an stake in serving the interests of people and companies who are not present in our state. Are you happy with that? Is your view of state's rights, that one state should be able to impose it's policy on the another state without that state's participation or consent?
--Hiram
I am pretty sure companies in Florida could create a policy that meet Minnesota's laws without having an office here.
I mean Blue Cross Blue Shield apparently has to operate 50 entities in this silly market.
Another thought... We wonder why insurance is so expensive when the government makes offering policies and so complicated ???
If it is as bad as you say, no wonder it costs so much. The company has to have 50 sets of lawyers, actuaries, marketing, etc, etc, etc.
I am pretty sure companies in Florida could create a policy that meet Minnesota's laws without having an office here.
Sure they could, and that's something they would really, really want to do. But is that something that you would want? If you had a problem with your Florida insurer, would you want to sue them in Florida where they have an office as opposed to Minnesota where they don't?
"I mean Blue Cross Blue Shield apparently has to operate 50 entities in this silly market."
You are talking reality, rather than political theory. The idea that we don't sell insurance across state lines now, is a Republican fantasy that mostly goes unnoticed. State health insurers are mostly owned by national companies who nationally set policy on a state by state basis. What Republicans are advocating is something that would only change the form in ways that would negatively affect substance. The national insurers would love to have local legislators decide policy for other states because they would be more pliable. Can you really count on a Florida legislator to look out for your interests as a Minnesota resident? Especially when your interests might be adverse to those of his Florida constituents?
==Hiram
why insurance is so expensive when the government makes offering policies and so complicated ???
That's what advocates of single payor ask quite a lot. Here is a delicate distinction which is mostly missed. While Republicans favor selling insurance across state lines, they are opposed, except when they are not, to creating one national health care market. The difference is between one big market and fifty little ones. Now these are complicated things, and there are lots of arguments that go all sorts of different ways. But note the manifold inefficiencies that are created by insisting that each state have it's own health care market. National insurance companies have to maintain local duplicative subsidiaries, the 50 sets of lawyers mentioned. Market inefficiencies become fixed. Although we have 50 markets, all markets aren't equal. Big market states like California and New York have economies of scale available to them that small market states like New Hampshire don't.
--Hiram
"My point is that this was their choice to do so, it is not a "huge distortion"... It is just normal job selection and marketing criteria."
It's only "normal" because we've tied health insurance to employment for most Americans. It's like suggesting which car you buy should be related to which breakfast cereal you prefer. They shouldn't have anything to do with each other.
"Not sure why it is not allowed?"
Little thing conservatives like called "states' rights". (except when it becomes inconvenient).
Let's assume conservatives get their way and we can sell insurance across state lines without any national standard for coverage. What will happen -- in the same way it happened in the credit card industry, where this is allowed -- is that states will stop offering policies under Minnesota law and you'll be forced to buy a less generous policy from some other state like South Dakota or Delaware that will literally allow health insurers to write the laws. You think it's bad under the ACA? You'll be paying more and getting less under the conservative dream scenario.
State's rights arguments from politicians are used as an excuse to avoid making a decision. It's often striking how little sense they make when given any thought at all. Lots of politicians will tell you that marriage law should be a matter of state's rights. But does this really comport with anyone's understanding of what marriage is generally or personally? When you got married, did the officiant really say "for better or for worse, but outside this state you are on your own"? If you get validly married in Minnesota, were you at all concerned that you would be living in sin if you and your spouse moved to Wisconsin?
Post a Comment