July 30, 2019

Judging Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, WaPo's fact-checker Glenn Kessler — instead of giving a Pinocchio rating — concludes "Readers have to view these proposals mostly as political messaging statements."

I'm reading "Bernie Sanders vs. Kamala Harris on taxes for Medicare-for-all." Here's the whole conclusion:
Readers have to view these proposals mostly as political messaging statements.

Sanders acknowledges that he will raise taxes on most Americans, but argues that all but the wealthy will experience a net gain in income. Harris is trying to one-up him by saying that she would not impose additional taxes on the middle class, even though Sanders’s pitch is exactly the opposite — that the middle class will experience higher incomes and lower health-care costs. She sidesteps the issue of whether most Americans should pay some kind of premium to get their health care, as they do currently under both Medicare and Obamacare.

Her proposal to impose a financial transactions tax would roughly make up for the lost revenue from not imposing premiums on people making less than $100,000 — but there could be gaping holes elsewhere.
You can see that doesn't say he's avoiding the usual Pinocchios (so, of course, there's no explanation of this deviation from the usual). Has Kessler ever before silently eschewed Pinocchios and substituted a line like "Readers have to view these proposals mostly as political messaging statements"?

I'm a reader, is he telling me what I "have" to do, what point of view I must take? And look at that weasel word: "mostly." Even if I accept his instruction and mostly think That's a political messaging statement, what about the rest of my thoughts? In that part, should I think Bernie and Kamala are somewhat shading the facts (1 Pinocchio), committing significant factual errors or obvious contradictions (2 or 3 Pinocchios), or telling whoppers (4 Pinocchios)? (See the fact checker's own description of the ratings here).

On my own, not following anyone's instructions, I already tend to view everything politicians say as "political messaging statements." So I wonder what's so special about Sanders and Harris that they emerge from a fact checking without experiencing judgment? We, the readers, are told that we shouldn't be so judgmental! Why am I slogging through a fact-checker column when it's perfectly easy to relegate everything candidates to the category "political messaging statements"? I could become the cynic who mutters "It's all politics!" It would save me a lot of time.

I checked the WaPo archive to see if Glenn Kessler had ever used the phrase "political messaging" before. He has not. This is a new exit route for him, it seems. I give it one Pinocchio. I don't know if he's favoring Harris and Sanders or if the straightforward answer is that no one can speak accurately about something as complex as restructuring the financing of health care.

But if the truth is the candidates can't do more than make political messaging statements, then a fact-checker, to be truthful, needs to say that these facts cannot be checked. Ah, but then you see the way in which Harris and Sanders deserve at least 1 Pinocchio: They're making statements about things they cannot know, offering assurances where there is, necessarily, insecurity.

165 comments:

rhhardin said...

4 Pocahontases.

Unknown said...

He doesn't want to acknowledge Kamala's plan is designed destroy private insurance, just not right away.

David Begley said...

What a Dem hack. This whole “fact checking” scam is just another form of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Fact checking the future has never been easy.

Freder Frederson said...

Yet you refuse to apply the same standards to Trump. What has he said about his "health plan" that has any connection to reality. He has also claimed to under his leadership obamacare works "at least adequately now".

tim maguire said...

Whether it's Snopes fact-checking a parody or media fact-checkers shading the truth to protect their team, it's hard to see who they think they're fooling. They're not even trying anymore.

walter said...

Harris wants us to have lots of "conversations".

tim maguire said...

Freder Frederson said...
Yet you refuse to apply the same standards to Trump


You'll have to take that up with WaPo. Althouse wasn't fact checking, she was analyzing a fact check.

But you know that.

Kevin said...

Fact checking is incompatible with the Progressive agenda.

The point is to provide cover and talking points to people like Inga, so they can believe they’re defending rational, fact-based proposals based on “truths” told to them by their leaders.

I give the entire fact-checking scheme four Pinocchios.

rehajm said...

WaPo fact checker is editorial. They say so themselves...

He eschews Pinocchios since their plans would each garner at least four. You can't implement a single multi trillion dollar program and pay for it with a tax rate increase to 100%, say nothing of a selective increase thay would only burden the middle class.

We all know why they forego the usual protocols. Fuck them. Assholes...

Mike Sylwester said...

ABC will broadcast the finale of The Bachelorette from 8 to 10 p.m.

Hannah will reveal her decision to give her final rose to either Tyler or Jed.

My wife and I are sure she will give it to Tyler, but we are looking forward to some surprising twists at the end.

walter said...

But Truuuuuumpppp!

tim maguire said...

tim maguire said...it's hard to see who they think they're fooling.


Freder Frederson said...Yet you refuse to apply the same standards to Trump


I guess I have my answer.

Ralph L said...

I care.

Not.

Bob Boyd said...

"Political messaging statement" means a Prog is lying because the stupid rubes don't know what's good for them, but the Prog does.

Ann Althouse said...

"Yet you refuse to apply the same standards to Trump. What has he said about his "health plan" that has any connection to reality. He has also claimed to under his leadership obamacare works "at least adequately now"."

Who are you talking to? To be honest, you would need to be talking to someone who purports to judge all the candidate's health plans? Did you look up to see how Glenn Kessler has treated Trump's statements about health care plans? Did GK refrain from assigning Pinocchios to Trump? If you're talking about me, I don't think I've been inconsistent as a reader of GK's columns and I don't purport on my own to assess health care plans. I know I don't know, so I shut up about it.

Jaq said...

“ So I wonder what's so special about Sanders and Harris that they emerge from a fact checking without experiencing judgment? “

And that, son, is what you call a rhetorical question.

Ann Althouse said...

@tim maguire Thanks for the reinforcement. I wrote my 7:46 comment before reading yours.

Jaq said...

“Yet you refuse to apply the same standards to Trump.”

I think the whole point of her post, at least as I interpret it, is why doesn’t the WaPo apply the same standards to Trump. Personally, I gave up on the. WaPo years ago. I actually wrote to the ombudsman then about how they left some words out of a “quote” from Sarah Palin to make it look ridiculous.

Maureen Dowd has done the same thing, and for a while, I was trying to make “Dowdlerize” happenm but I digress.

Jaq said...

I didn’t finish that story, the ombudsman wrote back saying that it was definitely a wrong thing to do. She got fired not long after that and they got rid of the role of a person to keep them honest. What a pest!

TJM said...

The Washington Compost. LOL - you have to be a special kind of stupid to take it seriously

Drago said...

Noted Bundy Case Outcome Liar Freder enters the fray regarding accuracy/standards and expects to be taken seriously.

Hilarity sure to ensue.

Jaq said...

It’s amazing to me how TDS prevents Freder from being able to comprehend what he reads.

Birkel said...

I was pretty sure Trump's healthcare plan was to improve the jobs situation so they could help themselves.
Then I looked at the cross-tabs for unemployment and I see it's working for Americans of all stripes.

Leftist Collectivists hardest hit, as always.

CWJ said...

"Fact checking the future has never been easy."

Thread winner.

Kevin said...

There is already a fact-checking organization in place for these claims: the Congressional Budget Office.

Have Sanders and Harris submit their plans in the form of a legislative bill and they’ll calculate a cost.

Jaq said...

I read the comments now and see Freder has been smacked around pretty good. I am sure he will skulk away now, or as readering would put it, be “too proud to back down” and so maintain his absurd position to make some kind of anti Trump point.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Nice work Althouse.

It stuns me on a regular basis to see how the media treats its readership, like a bunch of idiots. Maybe on average they are, it would help explain some things.

Kevin said...

"Fact checking the future has never been easy."

Some claims are so incredulous they require significant information to be believed.

Freder Frederson said...

I was pretty sure Trump's healthcare plan was to improve the jobs situation so they could help themselves.

I am certain you are wrong about that. He promised lower deductibles, co-pays, and rates along with better coverage.

And in fact the number of uninsured has risen, in spite of the low unemployment.

gspencer said...

Never seen together in the same room at the same time - the truth and a Democrat (including Democrat "fact-checkers" aka Democrat political operatives)

David Begley said...

Speaking of the future, a female Dem Rep wants to impeach Trump because the Russians are planning more election stunts in 2020. That’s right. Impeach based upon future events by a third party.

Hubert the Infant said...

In a very real way, patronizing Amazon enables the WaPo to serve as an organ of the Democratic Party rather than as a newspaper. That Instapundit and other Conservative bloggers actively encourage readers to do that never fails to disappoint.

Kevin said...

Is there a pool on the next Althouse commenter to be aborted?

Some of us would like to get a bet down.

Freder Frederson said...

If you're talking about me, I don't think I've been inconsistent as a reader of GK's columns and I don't purport on my own to assess health care plans. I know I don't know, so I shut up about it.

I am talking about you and many of your commenters. And while this thread is about health care, there is a general rule here that lies told by Trump are not really lies, us anti-Trumpers just don't understand the deeper truth.

And if you do not understand health care, why do you spend so much time on a topic of which you are admittedly ignorant?

Yancey Ward said...

The taxes needed for Medicare for All will be as much as is spent on private medical insurance plus co-pays as of today, plus the additional cost for the new insurance for all the people who don't carry any insurance at all. I would guess this would be about $2 trillion minimum in new taxes (less taxes if you institute Part B type program premiums, but that doesn't seem to be part of any Democrat's proposal right now- it seems all paid by taxes). The total revenue of the US government today is about $3.5 trillion dollars.

You are not going to get 2 trillion dollars taxing only the wealthy, or taxing financial transactions. If you say this you are just flat out lying.

Michael K said...

WaPoo is the DNC house organ. What do you expect ?

One interesting step Trump has taken is to try to force health care, especially insurance companies, to publish prices. Most people with insurance have no idea what the "wholesale" prices paid by insurance companies are. With the very high deductibles of Obamacare, that is very important to learn.

Jaq said...

“ And in fact the number of uninsured has risen, in spite of the low unemployment.”

According your your link, the non elderly insured rose from 10.0 to 10.2 percent under Trump. So sure, your statement appears to be factually correct.

One might ask how many of these new uninsured are healthy young adults freed from the fine they were assessed under the ACA to force them to subsidize the care of their elders.... Naah! That’ can’t account for the entire 0.2 percent!

Freder Frederson said...

Some of us would like to get a bet down.

I found Ann's conniption over Inga rather amusing. Especially when she bemoaned the lack of progressive voices on her blog. In her narcissism, she doesn't realize that she is the one who is mostly responsible for chasing off most of the progressives. She rarely, if ever, calls out conservatives for outright lies or abusive behavior, yet is ready to jump on progressives for any violation of her mysterious rules.

Michael K said...

us anti-Trumpers just don't understand the deeper truth.

It would help if you sounded like you knew anything.

Jaq said...

“You are not going to get 2 trillion dollars taxing only the wealthy, or taxing financial transactions. If you say this you are just flat out lying.”

The Canadians and Europeans rely on regressive taxes, they “tax the poor” because there is no other way to get the money. Taxing the rich to pay for “Medicare for All” is a five pinochio fantasy.

Freder Frederson said...

One might ask how many of these new uninsured are healthy young adults freed from the fine they were assessed under the ACA to force them to subsidize the care of their elders.... Naah! That’ can’t account for the entire 0.2 percent!

The assertion was that Trump's "healthcare plan" is to get more people employed and the number of insured will rise. That is not what Trump claimed. And even if he had asserted that, it is apparently not working.

hawkeyedjb said...

Why do we pay attention to people pontificating about "health care" who know nothing of value about medicine, insurance, finance or complex systems? Politicians literally know nothing about those subjects. You listen and you hear stupidity, arrogance, and wishful thinking. If you wonder whether we will ever achieve an improved or less-expensive health care system, the answer is "not with these people involved."

If any of them took the time to study how other countries' health care systems actually work, and what the trade-offs are with each, they might be worth listening to. But none of them has done that, and never will. They retreat into the fantasy that they believe will garner votes: I can make it better and cheaper! Anyone who succumbs to their fantasies is gonna get what they hope for, good and hard.

Jaq said...

“ found Ann's conniption over Inga rather amusing.”

I thought about that for a while, but then it occured to me that maybe she doesn’t want her blog to be about cutting and pasting talking points, and then refusing to defend them or back off, even when they are have been refuted utterly and thoroughly, like the one she dragged in here that day that came from a Democrat Party fundraising email.

You might notice that conservative here, as a rule, attempt to engage you in discussion and answer your objections. Same with all liberals.

But the point of the post was that the WaPo has different standards for Democrats. I can see why you would rather not talk about that.

Freder Frederson said...

It would help if you sounded like you knew anything.

Thank you for making a comment that is a perfect example of the kind of comment that would bring the wrath of Ann down on me or Inga but you can post with impunity.

Jaq said...

“The assertion was that Trump's "healthcare plan" is to get more people employed and the number of insured will rise. “

It’s hard to know what might have been had we not spent the first two years of his presidency in obsessive discussion of trumped up and baseless charges of collusion made by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Freder Frederson said...

You might notice that conservative here, as a rule, attempt to engage you in discussion and answer your objections.

As a rule, they claim I am lying and when I back up my comments with links, they insult me. (e.g., see most of Michael K.'s comments directed at me).

Jaq said...

“Thank you for making a comment that is a perfect example of the kind of comment that would bring the wrath of Ann down on me or Inga but you can post with impunity.”

That’s nonsense. All she asks is that one back up one’s barbs. Inga just kept repeating her nonsense talking point.

Known Unknown said...

Why bother with them at all then?

h said...

Glenn Kessler: "I check facts." Verdict: 4 pinocchios.

Meade said...

Freder @7:59
Did you even read the article you linked to? “In 2017, 27.4 million people lacked health coverage, up slightly from 2016.”

Known Unknown said...

"I am talking about you and many of your commenters. And while this thread is about health care, there is a general rule here that lies told by Trump are not really lies, us anti-Trumpers just don't understand the deeper truth."

Trump lies. He lies a lot. But so do most politicians. The "burn it down" set of the population (which I am a sort-of part of) don't care about lies anymore. I don't care about words anymore. Words are the cheapest form of political currency. Say whatever the hell you want. I want to know what you will do or have done.

Jaq said...

“I am talking about you and many of your commenters. And while this thread is about health care, there is a general rule here that lies told by Trump are not really lies,”

Like this statement. It looks like that is the general rule the WaPo applies to Democrats. That was the point of the post, but it has evidently upset you to hear that.

A lot of time what you call “lies” are really just the product of your invidious interpretations of Trump’s words. Other times, he has set goals that he has failed to reach. Yes, the #RESISTANCE has made it difficult for him to get things done. A two year lying witch hunt consuming all of the oxygen in the press, and probably costing Republicans the House hasn’t helped either.

You can’t look at any of it honestly. You can’t see except through your TDS goggles. We really don’t need talking point pasters here, they don’t add anything.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...

The D-Hack Press Dies in Darkness.

Mike Sylwester said...

Democracy Dies in Darkness!

Yancey Ward said...

Freder's brain has spent the last 37 years in a freezer somewhere.

Jaq said...

Imagine of the Democrats had worked with Trump to get a reform of the ACA passed. But they will only do that when they are in charge, so that they can be sure the billions and billions in goodies in such a bill will go to their cronies. What other explanation can their be?

DarkHelmet said...

The two most overpriced service industries in America are healthcare and higher education. Everybody should understand why this is by now. When the government is willing to pump vast amounts of money into an industry prices go up. In both higher education and healthcare the way to lower costs is to turn off the firehose of government money. Yes, it's really that simple.

Medicine is a tech business with a layer of social psychology spread on top. Every other technology driven service is disciplined by the market, forcing prices down, quality up and innovation forward. We are very fortunate that we have the degree of innovation that we do in medical sciences given the crushing presence of government. If the government moves from roughly 50% payer to 100% payer you can kiss most of that innovation goodbye.

Jaq said...

Almost nobody who wants to work can’t get a job, but there has been a 0.2% increase in the number of uninsured, probably due to removing the coercive fine on workers who don’t really need anthing but catastrophic health insurance, something the ACA forbid. I will take that result.

Seeing Red said...

Her proposal to impose a financial transactions tax would roughly make up for the lost revenue from not imposing premiums on people making less than $100,000 — but there could be gaping holes elsewhere.


The Rats are ratcheting down what wealthy or “the rich” is. It’s now $100k.

Steve Green has an analysis on Obamacare. Phaseout was $110-$120k.

Now it’s $100k.

Blue states hardest hit.

Rick said...

So I wonder what's so special about Sanders and Harris that they emerge from a fact checking without experiencing judgment?

It's not the people so much as the time. It's one thing to criticize Democrats when you're trying to motivate them to move left. It's something quite different to risk harming The Anointed.

Seeing Red said...

The world is over in 12ish years.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Temujin said...

WaPo: in the bag for Democrats. That is not even an argument any longer.
Kessler: Weasel in the largest sense.

All of you- every one of you reading and commenting here- can find stats to back up their positions. Put the most favored stats down for a moment and consider the real world. Just how would you pay for health care for all? And just what kind of service do you think you'd get from the people who are government employees? What is their incentive to improve the service or pay attention to your individual needs? How do they keep costs from skyrocketing beyond their wildest projections (just like Medicaid did within the first year or two).

Do you really want to turn your health over to a GIGANTIC bureaucracy full of viciously corrupt and power hungry people? (not to generalize too broadly, heh). Keep your stats in your folder. If you think that, this time, a full-on socialist approach to giving healthcare to 330 million individuals with individual needs, concerns, and standards of living is a good thing, I think you need to take election day off and read some history of the last 100 years.

Young people I can excuse for this thinking. But older, life-experienced people (such as Bernie and Kamala) have no such excuse. They aren't interested in your health. They are interested only in corralling total power over your life. You think Bernie cares about your health? Seriously? No one is going to care about your health care except for you and your doc. And you should be free to select your doc and she should be free to offer you what she thinks is best for you, not what some dull-witted bureaucrat thinks is best for the 'greater good'.

Tina Trent said...

This is the guy who said in 2008 that Obama didn't so much lie as "tell the truth slowly" regarding his relationship with Bill Ayers.

We now know he lied, but we knew that then, too. Fact checkers are narrative aerobicists.

RNB said...

Jake: You lied to me.

Elwood: Wasn't lies, it was just... bulls**t.

Kevin said...

She rarely, if ever, calls out conservatives for outright lies or abusive behavior, yet is ready to jump on progressives for any violation of her mysterious rules.

They’re generally not the ones calling Althouse names and insulting her on her own blog.

Calypso Facto said...

The US Census Bureau disagrees with the above assertion that the number of uninsured has increased: "In 2017, 8.8 percent of people, or 28.5 million, did not have health insurance at any point during the year as measured by the CPS ASEC. The uninsured rate and number of uninsured in 2017 were not statistically different from 2016 (8.8 percent or 28.1 million). And in fact, nominally: "the number of people with health insurance increased by 2.3 million from 2016 to 2017". And even more directly to Freder's point, the number insured by employment-based private insurance also rose between 2016 and 2017 by about 3 million persons, so yes, more jobs does equal more people privately insured (Table 1, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2017).

Freder's link cherry-picks the data from the entire population to emphasize the deviation caused when young, healthy, low-income individuals chose to forego government insurance when the penalty was lifted. What a shame, people making their own rational economic choices, rather than being willingly taken advantage of to score political points!

Shouting Thomas said...

Last time the Democrats saved me a lot of money on grand health insurance reform, i.e., Obamacare, my premiums doubled and then tripled.

Fortunately, this was two years before I retired and went on Medicare.

The Dems' history of delivering on these grand promises is not very encouraging.

Seeing Red said...

+1

And it’s not just “Americans” who will get “free” health care.

Cali is offering “free” health care to anyone who can get there whose NOT an American citizen.

Do you really think they won’t first shift?

That osrtiallycwgat the census question is about.

Open borders WE pay for it all.

There’s not enough money in this country.

Math is hard.

tim maguire said...

Freder Frederson said...there is a general rule here that lies told by Trump are not really lies,

That's true. Trump's tweets, whether true or false, are calculated to accomplish something, usually by triggering an over-reaction by the left. You can insist on shouting about how what he said isn't true, but most of the time there is an underlying truth and the superficial falsehood helps bring that underlying truth to the surface.

Which is so much more interesting than "Trump's a lying racist!!"

Robert Cook said...

"Trump lies. He lies a lot. But so do most politicians. The 'burn it down' set of the population (which I am a sort-of part of) don't care about lies anymore. I don't care about words anymore. Words are the cheapest form of political currency. Say whatever the hell you want. I want to know what you will do or have done."

This doesn't make sense. How can you know what someone will do if they always lie? You can only know what someone has done after it's done, which is too late to try to stop it or the person who did it if it does not accord with the people's wishes.

You can't just "not care" about politicians' lies. That not only allows them to lie, it encourages them to continue, in fact, to disregard even the pretense they will try to work for the people's benefit. If lying politicians pay consequences by being turned out of office, they will learn we won't accept their lies. If they can lie with impunity, we are simply surrendering our republic to the ruling elites who pay the politicians for their services.

Seeing Red said...

Via Insty earlier this week:

...Most notably, both are advocates of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, which is the ‘60s-era brainchild of two hard-left academics to “end poverty” by creating an economic crisis that would lead to the collapse of capitalism resulting in its replacement with socialism.

As one of our political analysts, Arnold Ahlert, wrote: “In 1966, Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven formulated the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It was a plan to overthrow America’s capitalist system by overloading the welfare state bureaucracy with demands that were impossible to meet, thereby precipitating a revolution.” Ahlert noted that the latest “effort to 'crash the system’” is to overload it with illegal immigrants....

Francisco D said...

Thank you for making a comment that is a perfect example of the kind of comment that would bring the wrath of Ann down on me or Inga but you can post with impunity.

Freder,

Are you just mailing it in or do you really lack the ability to discriminate between comments made by Inga and Michael K.?

You are not representing your team very well.

Jaq said...

Kaiser Foundation has a single payer agenda. Their numbers are not lies, they just seldom provide the complete truth. Try to find statistics on premium increases or decreases since Trump has become president. I got a hunch that by the silence of the news on this issue, they probably were either stable or dropping, and google hard enough, and that’s what you find. I wasn’t able to find any numbers for premiums in relation to wages, but with premiums stable and wages rising, I have an idea what the number might look like.

The WaPo said in 2016 that Trump was going to cause 25 million people to lose health insurance, BTW.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Kessler “let the cat out of the bag” so to speak! A Kinsley Gaffe, in essence, revealing the sordid truth that he’s not really there to fact-check Democrats unless he can “totally exonerate” them. He only Pinocchios the other team, unless the lie is so brazen he can’t “cover it, with a pillow until it stops moving.”

Freder Frederson said...

Fortunately, this was two years before I retired and went on Medicare.

The Dems' history of delivering on these grand promises is not very encouraging.


Do you have any idea of how deliciously, and apparently unintentionally, ironic this statement is?

DarkHelmet said...

Temujin is correct:

"They aren't interested in your health. They are interested only in corralling total power over your life. You think Bernie cares about your health? Seriously? No one is going to care about your health care except for you and your doc."

Of the 330 million or so residents of this nation there are at least 329,999,974 persons I'd rather have in charge of my healthcare than Bernie Sanders.

Imagine you are making out a healthcare power of attorney to handle your critical life care decisions should you become incapacitated. Would you entrust Bernie Freakin' Sanders in that role? Elizabeth the Fake Indian? Beto the Fake Hispanic? Spartacus? I'd rather take my chances with a random person off the street.

hawkeyedjb said...

"The two most overpriced service industries in America are healthcare and higher education."

Throw in housing and you have the grand trifecta of government-induced price inflation. And when government sets out to "fix" the problem... well, when every problem looks like a lack of money flowing to government, your wallet is the solution.

Michael K said...

Thank you for making a comment that is a perfect example of the kind of comment that would bring the wrath of Ann down on me or Inga but you can post with impunity.

Freder, you could deal with this by posting comments that addressed the issue. I am not the only one who does not recall links posted by you. I would be interested to see some. I have an advanced degree in health care economics, obtained after I retired from 30 years of medical practice. I have spent time writing and posting some ideas on health care reform. They are not Trump's plan, as far as I can tell, but he is constantly obstructed by leftists like you in anything he wants to try. Obamacare was a disaster, aside from the incompetence displayed in its introduction.

Shouting Thomas said...

Do you have any idea of how deliciously, and apparently unintentionally, ironic this statement is?

I paid into Medicare for 45 years.

Most of the time, I worked as a contractor or freelancer, so I paid at the 15% rate as opposed to the 7-1/2% rate.

Over the long haul, I've paid a fortune into Medicare. You're saying this was a bargain?

tim maguire said...

Robert Cook said...How can you know what someone will do if they always lie?

By what they do and what they lie about. I don't look to Trump's statements for factual analysis of a situation, I look to them for indications of what he's thinking about and what he's going to do and what he's trying to get others to do. There is a system to Trump's lies.

Would I prefer a politician who doesn't lie? Absolutely. And they don't all lie equally, even if they all do lie. But really what I want is a president who will be a tolerable manager of the economy, not get us into unfortunate foreign entanglements, not manipulate us too much with silly regulations or oppressive laws and generally leave us alone as much as possible.

Right now, there is only one person in politics who will do that. And he lies a lot on Twitter.

Freder Frederson said...

Imagine of the Democrats had worked with Trump to get a reform of the ACA passed.

Imagine if Trump (or the Republican controlled Congress) had actually proposed a reform of the ACA. There was no proposal, other than outright repeal with no replacement, put forward (despite Trump's statements that he had a terrific plan).

Ann Althouse said...

"I found Ann's conniption over Inga rather amusing."

This provided the opportunity for me to take a break and amuse myself researching a word in the OED. "Conniption" seems like some sort of medical event, like a seizure. But what exactly is it? The OED has no etymology for the word, no description of where the parts of the word come from. Nothing about how "con-" — meaning against — and "-tion" — a standard ending — relate to "-nip-" and make a word.

There's a dismissive "U.S. vulgar." and the examples support the judgment that this is a low-class American word:

1833 S. Smith Life & Writings Major Jack Downing lxiii. 209 Ant Keziah fell down in a conniption fit.
1844 ‘J. Slick’ High Life N.Y. II. 171 By Golly! it was enough to drive any human critter into a conniption-fit!...
1859 Harper's Weekly 19 Nov. 747/1 She..went into a conniption at the sight of poor Snap....

stlcdr said...

The government does things so well, I want them managing and financing my health. Maybe they can tell me - since healthcare has been relegated to the government - whether I can or cannot get an abortion. They are wise.

Be careful what you ask for.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

I get the kernel of Freder’s point, though he slathers it in the usual greasy layers of Prog nonsense. But pretending that the WaPo and the Althouse blog are somehow equivalent opinion-shaping entities is ludicrous. WaPo should be have a much higher standard of objectivity. Lest democracy die in the darkness or something.

Ann Althouse said...

"And if you do not understand health care, why do you spend so much time on a topic of which you are admittedly ignorant?"

You need to do a better job of identifying the topic. Get that right and your question disappears.

Jaq said...

You have to forgive Freder, the WaPo provides all of his news an opinions (political messaging statement) and so if you question the WaPo, it makes his head spin! (rhetorical hyperbole)

Freder Frederson said...

They are not Trump's plan

Of course they are not Trump's plan, he doesn't have one.

You seem to admire France's system. But then you claim, without the least shred of evidence, that such a plan would be DOA in U.S. because the liberals or Democrats would reject it out of hand.

So you make a reasonable proposal and then make up a lie to justify why it would not work here.

DarkHelmet said...

"WaPo should be have a much higher standard of objectivity."

Oh, lord, I needed a laugh this morning. Thanks.

Shouting Thomas said...

Of course they are not Trump's plan, he doesn't have one.

Please, please, save me from government plans.

Every time the government plans something big and comprehensive, it takes more of my money.

My plan is free market capitalism. Leave us alone.

So, if Trump doesn't have a plan, God bless him.

Freder Frederson said...

Wow, I did not know that "conniption" (with its current meaning intact) dated at least back to the 1830's.

Jaq said...

“magine if Trump (or the Republican controlled Congress) had actually proposed a reform of the ACA.”

https://trumpcare.com

Imagine if the press hadn’t been occupied 24X7 and he hadn’t been hounded by a supposedly neutral Special Counsel, who was non compos mentis and whose job had been usurped by a lawyer for Hillary Clinton.

DarkHelmet said...

"Please, please, save me from government plans."

Hear, hear! But of course, they can't help themselves. You must be controlled. It's for your own good.

Seeing Red said...

He had a plan for prescription drugs.

Let’s see if he can work around the blockage.

Ann Althouse said...

I've never written on the topic of health-care policy. The 2 big areas I try to avoid writing about are economic policy and foreign policy. Some of my posts have material on those subjects but only because they're necessarily there as I write about something that is in my zone. I'm always writing around the policy questions and don't want to express an opinion because I don't want to clutter the world with amateur opinions and in fact I don't even clutter my own mind with such opinions. I don't have them. If I were assigned the power to make decisions on economic policy and foreign policy and forced to exercise that power, I would have to work from the ground up, figuring out who the reliable experts are and educating myself and making judgments about risks in changing anything.

Rick said...

Freder Frederson said...
Yet you refuse to apply the same standards to Trump. What has he said about his "health plan" that has any connection to reality. He has also claimed to under his leadership obamacare works "at least adequately now".


She's criticizing the newspaper staff not a politician. What are the chances Kessler would refuse to label a Trump political statement on the same grounds?

We call this the full Blutarsky, 0.0%. But Freder has to protect the team and that means stupidly attacking others.

That is not what Trump claimed. And even if he had asserted that, it is apparently not working.

Revealingly neither Freder nor the left generally criticize Obamacare for failing to meet its stated objectives and still act as if any change to his failed plan is murder. As Freder constantly proves left wingers only care about attacking others politically, the impact of their or others' policies is irrelevant.

Jaq said...

All a healthy 25 year old needs personally is “junk insurance” as the press and the Democrats (sorry for the redundancy) call it. Why do married couples in their late fifties need to pay for condoms?

Clyde said...

Well OF COURSE the Democrats would raise taxes if they should happen to be elected. They are smarter than you are and know better than you how it should be spent. They would be doing it for your own good, you know. You'd probably just waste it on beer and lottery tickets. Your moral betters would put it to much better use. And if they happen to get richer along the way, well, that's just as it should be. You don't bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain!

Ann Althouse said...

"Wow, I did not know that "conniption" (with its current meaning intact) dated at least back to the 1830's."

Why is that surprising? It totally sounds like a 19th century word. Did you think it was some cool youth slang?!

It sounds like a word you'd run across in Mark Twain... though my "Complete Works of Mark Twain" only has it once:

"You see, Parsons' travels happened like this: When he first got to be postmaster and was green in the business, there come a letter for somebody he didn't know, and there wasn't any such person in the village. Well, he didn't know what to do, nor how to act, and there the letter stayed and stayed, week in and week out, till the bare sight of it gave him a conniption. The postage wasn't paid on it, and that was another thing to worry about. There wasn't any way to collect that ten cents, and he reckon'd the gov'ment would hold him responsible for it and maybe turn him out besides, when they found he hadn't collected it. Well, at last he couldn't stand it any longer. He couldn't sleep nights, he couldn't eat, he was thinned down to a shadder, yet he da'sn't ask anybody's advice, for the very person he asked for advice might go back on him and let the gov'ment know about the letter. He had the letter buried under the floor, but that did no good; if he happened to see a person standing over the place it'd give him the cold shivers, and loaded him up with suspicions, and he would sit up that night till the town was still and dark, and then he would sneak there and get it out and bury it in another place. Of course, people got to avoiding him and shaking their heads and whispering, because, the way he was looking and acting, they judged he had killed somebody or done something terrible, they didn't know what, and if he had been a stranger they would've lynched him."

From "Tom Sawyer Abroad."

Michael K said...

"The two most overpriced service industries in America are healthcare and higher education."

No argument in education. Healthcare is more complicated. In the 1950s, when I was kid, health insurance was structured as "indemnity" insurance. If you had a heart attack, an actuary figured out how much that should cost and you get paid that amount. That is insurance. It was still pretty much the state of things when I graduated from medical school in 1966.

Lyndon Johnson and "The Great Society" changed all that about that time. By the time I started in private practice in 1972, it was changing fast. People did not want to pay for medical care. Technology raised the costs about that time, too. Instead of insurance, which paid flat amounts, you got cost shifting. Blue Cross was originally a creation of the American Hospital Association. It was NOT insurance. Hospitals got a pool of money to divide up and they divided it up by how much care each hospital provided. Accounting was NOT the method. However, indemnity plans, favored by employers, wanted a cost accounting approach. That's how you got ten dollar aspirin tablets. Sort of like $1000 airplane toilets in the military. Same principle.

I don't want to compose a course on health care economics but the only way you will be control of costs is to go back to indemnity style insurance and pay cash for routine care. I see little chance of that happening. No more than balancing the national budget,.

Shouting Thomas said...

I was born into poverty in rural Illinois in 1950.

Not once in my life... not once... have I wanted for adequate and competent medical care.

My little home town was very poor. In many instances, doctors bartered their services for chickens or beef or compensatory labor.

But, I never once suffered from lack of care.

I've never witnessed this emergency of lack of medical care Democrats have been bitching about my entire life.

I tend to believe my own experience. This crisis of medical care is fabricated and always has been.

Jaq said...

Could you imagine a world in which the WaPo would have factually reported Trump’s proposals on health insurance? Where’s the anti Trump angle in that? Straight news from that rag went completely out the window in 2008. Now, since they are Freder’s only source of news, APPARENTLY, he makes ill informed and erroneous declarations here.

Jaq said...

"My little home town was very poor. In many instances, doctors bartered their services for chickens or beef or compensatory labor.”

My dad used to stop by the Dr’s office, which he walked past on the way to work every day, once a week and give him $5. If one of us kids ended up in the hospital, that was another matter. He also made use of his WWII military training for more extensive first aid you might take to an emergency room today.

Michael K said...

You seem to admire France's system. But then you claim, without the least shred of evidence, that such a plan would be DOA in U.S. because the liberals or Democrats would reject it out of hand.

Last response to you as you seem only interested in abuse, like Inga and a few others.

France has a market mechanism to control utilization. Do you get that ? The patient pays FIRST an amount the doctor or hospital charges. The charges have to be posted first (Trump's plan to disclose all rates) and the payment AFTER the patient pays the bill, is a flat rate, not the whole amount.

When have you seen Democrats support a market mechanism to control costs ?

DarkHelmet said...

Michael K wrote:

"I don't want to compose a course on health care economics but the only way you will be control of costs is to go back to indemnity style insurance and pay cash for routine care."

That is exactly correct and obvious to everyone who isn't a politician or otherwise self-interested. Most healthcare should be cash at the point of sale. Rare and expensive problems are where insurance should come in.

Like you, I see little chance of a move toward what is the only sane option. Because voters are stupidly emotional on this topic and politicians are phenomenally dishonest and venal.

Jaq said...

"Rare and expensive problems are where insurance should come in.”

Known as “junk insurance” to the Washinton Post.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

To Mike K et al:

Just getting hospitals and clinics to post “cash prices” would be a big step forward at this point. And if the current effort to effect this is NOT related to a long-term effort to reestablish a cash + indemnity system, then why is Trump pushing it?

DarkHelmet said...

"Known as “junk insurance” to the Washinton Post."

It's funny, when I think of the Washington Post the phrase that comes to mind is 'junk journalism.'

Rick said...

Especially when she bemoaned the lack of progressive voices on her blog.

Actually she asked for liberals. The problem is scarcity which your name substitution tacitly admits.

Michael K said...

Most healthcare should be cash at the point of sale. Rare and expensive problems are where insurance should come in.

Glad to see I am not just talking to myself. Insurance for routine care just is a cash cow for insurance companies. A $25 claim costs $50 to $100 to process. Insurance companies HATE health insurance. They are happy to be "Administrative Service Organizations," which is what they do for employer plans. They process the claims and the employers pays the bills, including the fee for processing. Insurance company lobbyists wrote Obamacare. Hillary Clinton made a mistake i excluding insurance companies from her plan. It threatened their ASO business and they went to war on TV. When Pelosi and Reid came up with Obamacare, they let the insurance industry write it. The federal government was going to pay the bills instead of the employer. The sky would be the limit !

The disastrous rollout scared everybody and the Democrats were afraid to enforce the employer mandate. The insurance companies had anticipated all 150 million being forced into Obamacare. When that didn't happen, the cost shifting didn't work.

Sebastian said...

"a fact-checker, to be truthful"

Now that's funny.

It's a fact that the fact-checker's job is not to be "truthful." Truthyful, maybe.

Anyway, item #3198 in the Althouse series on progs reporting and arguing and fact-checking in bad faith. Who knew?

Michael K said...

Just getting hospitals and clinics to post “cash prices” would be a big step forward at this point. And if the current effort to effect this is NOT related to a long-term effort to reestablish a cash + indemnity system, then why is Trump pushing it?

Of course. Some of his effort might be a brushback to the insurance companies, which don't want reform. Most people who have these 80/20 plans, don't understand that, in real dollars, the insurance 80% may be less than their 20% copay.

Yancey Ward said...

"They are happy to be "Administrative Service Organizations,"

This can't be stressed nearly enough.

rehajm said...

Just getting hospitals and clinics to post “cash prices” would be a big step forward at this point.

One is trying... but, It's harder than it looks...

Rick said...

The two most overpriced service industries in America are healthcare and higher education.

Note that Democrats treat these two industries completely differently. Medical costs are criticized as bloated while education is claimed to be underfunded. This is despite healthcare today being vastly different than healthcare decades ago and education being largely static in delivery and degraded in outcomes.

But of course Education is largely staffed by government employees who vote and donate Democrat.

BJM said...

The Dems use the term "providers" but fail to mention the costs to the tens of millions working in healthcare. It's not just doctors who would take a pay cut but millions of nurses, technicians and support personnel. Many of whom have worked decades to earn degrees and certification to advance their careers and income. A hospital and/or medical center is akin to a small city with tiers of employees performing jobs we patients never see.

The suppliers of goods and services employ millions more.

Like your dentist? Medicare doesn't cover most dental care, dental procedures, or supplies, like cleanings, fillings, tooth extractions, dentures, dental plates, or other dental devices. ... Some Medicare Advantage Plans (Part C) offer extra benefits that Original Medicare doesn't cover - like vision, hearing, or dental. Kaiser's Advantage Plus, for example, provides an outside dental insurer that pays $16 for a dental exam and cleaning.

$16.00

How's your dentist going to remain in business? Of course the reimbursements will have to be increased as they will across the industry. So where are the savings?

How can tens of millions in the healthcare industry earning less not impact their local and the national economy?

It's easy to demonize healthcare insurers, especially in an election cycle, as we've all experienced challenging them to get what we want or need; but what happens to the hundreds of thousands of clerical/info workers employed by the insurers?

Drawing from or contributing to a public pension? Many invested in the healthcare sector as it was considered a growth area. Oopsie!

Govt healthcare spending as of 2018 is 27% of the federal budget. As reported last June in the NYT, the Medicare Hospital Trust (Part A) will run out of funds in 2026.

So where will the money come from for Medicare For All? This is worst than election pandering and/or socialist pie-in-the-sky it's impossible to fund.

Michael K said...

Some entries were clear-cut. At St. Anthony, the average charge for a simple vaginal birth was $15,182.

From the Tulsa World piece. Normal deliveries were not insured when my older three kids were born. Cost about $450 in 1969.

By 1980, when my next was born, it was $6000 and insured.

Ralph L said...

the insurance 80% may be less than their 20% copay

"House" had an episode where Cuddy negotiated with Big Insurance Company for the Hospital's compensation. 13% was her number. I didn't realize that meant 13% of what the hospital "billed" until I had a large hospital bill, which Blue Cross knocked down to ~13%, of which I paid about half, hitting my ACA yearly out of pocket maximum.

rehajm said...

Kessler on lies: We are always careful to say this is a list of false or misleading statements, but I obviously can’t control how other people write about our work

As you well know, ‘literally true’ comments can be misleading without the proper context


Now there's some weasel words for ya.

Here's a selection of Trump statements that Kessler’s team said were “untruths” that just aren’t.

Robert Cook said...

"Do you really want to turn your health over to a GIGANTIC bureaucracy full of viciously corrupt and power hungry people?"

Our healh is under the control of a "GIGANTIC bureaucracy," the private health insurance industry, full of greedy and corrupt health insurance executives and CEOs.

Robert Cook said...

"My plan is free market capitalism."

So, you would remove the sheepdogs and leave the sheep to the wolves.

rehajm said...

So, you would remove the sheepdogs and leave the sheep to the wolves

Oh please. Work harder.

Rick said...

Our healh is under the control of a "GIGANTIC bureaucracy," the private health insurance industry, full of greedy and corrupt health insurance executives and CEOs.

This group of greedy people can only make money if the convince your employer their product is actually valuable - at least they used to until government took that option away from you. We could improve on this by leaving the choice up to the insured and forcing people to satisfy their greed only by delivering a product the end user agrees is valuable enough to part with their own money. But instead Cook and the left generally want to replace this group of greedy and corrupt decision makers with the only group of greedy and corrupt decision makers less responsive to the beneficiaries: government administrators.

Nichevo said...

So you make a reasonable proposal and then make up a lie to justify why it would not work here.



And you object to being treated like a jerk.

stlcdr said...

Conniption fit: commonly used in the UK (at least, while I was growing up). Similar to 'flipping out'. Typically applied when someone goes nuts over something, potentially, trivial; for example, someone puts a cup on a table without using a coaster, the host has a conniption fit.

BJM said...

I agree that most healthcare should be cash at the point of sale. Catastrophic insurance should handle expensive problems. The problem is that we commingled health care delivery with insurance and now it's SNAFUed.

Our car and home insurance choices are ala cart and so should our health insurance options.

Seeing Red said...

Triggly Puff.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, you would remove the sheepdogs and leave the sheep to the wolves.

My family is now full up with doctors, nurses, LPNs, lab techs, etc.

They entered that profession out of a sincere desire to serve, and that’s what they are doing.

I trust them a lot more than Democratic Party apparatchiks and bureaucrats.

cubanbob said...

Micheal K very astute comments. It's refreshing to read comments from people who actually know what they are talking about. The French system does have aspects that merit looking into. And so would eliminating the ban on interstate health insurance along with full pricing disclosures. Freder, as commented by others above, the thread is about the truthfulness not the truthiness of the WaPo "fact checker". One of the problems with the argument the progressives make is that they assume there is a near universal agreement to their basic premise that everyone has a right to have their medical care paid for with Other People's Money. They aren't there yet. On any given day most people don't need medical care but they do need to eat. Yet the progressives push for Marxist methods of providing medical care but not for Marxist methods of food production and distribution. Or is that next in the progressive agenda?

Jaq said...

"So, you would remove the sheepdogs and leave the sheep to the wolves.”

If you are the sheepdog, Robert, and you believe the things you seem to believe, I will take my chances with the wolves.

Jaq said...

“Misleading” to the WaPo means might lead one to question the Democrat position.

Tina Trent said...

Living near Sun City Center in Florida, with many neighbors working in doctor's offices, taught me a lot about how to eliminate the bloat in Medicare. Living near the Medicaid-subsidized illegal immigration and poverty in Wimauma, Florida taught me a lot about how the choices we're making encourage flagrant abuse of taxpayers' generosity and manufacture of multi-generational dependency so efficient that it put the ghettos of Atlanta, where I'd previously worked, to shame.

Medicare's pyramid scheme coincided with vast growth in medical services and technology. People who paid less than 4% of the first 75-85K of their income for decades now have wall-to-wall access to doctors even when they don't need them. And many of them treat this access as a privilege they've "paid for," which doesn't happen to be accurate, while their children and grandchildren shell out 13.9% for SSI/Medi/Medi before ponying up another 12-20K for high-deductible healthcare plans. So if you earn what most people earn, you're paying 30% or more between health insurance, deductibles for very low use, and SSI/Medi/Medi.

Medicaid's ponzi scheme is to build out a partisan political base that will enrich politicians and that base at the expense of everyone else. Worst served are the minority of actually chronically ill Medicaid recipents for whom the system was created in the first place.

Pyramid meets ponzi; we're pretty much left with two choices: socialized medicine or limping along as we are until everyone who doesn't work directly for the government become a complete government dependent in order to access healthcare. If this isn't success for one side of the political equation, I don't know what "success" means.

Of course there could be market experimentation with catastrophic care plus pay as you go plans, plus price disclosure, and other innovations. But how would that get past the fact-checkers?



Ralph L said...

I saw an unusual derivative of "snit" last week, and I can't remember what it was.

DarkHelmet said...

It's funny how 'removing the sheepdogs and leaving the sheep to the wolves' in the above fanciful description results in a perfectly adequate system for the delivery of food, housing, transportation, entertainment, and virtually every other good or service one can imagine. Somehow we all survive without buying our groceries through a national food insurance program. We buy cars (very expensive ones, too) without running it through a federally organized 'exchange.'

If you really think politicians and bureaucrats are 'sheepdogs' protecting the rest of us then I just shake my head.

Michael K said...

Our healh is under the control of a "GIGANTIC bureaucracy," the private health insurance industry, full of greedy and corrupt health insurance executives and CEOs.

Far lefties like you usually choose an HMO. No problem with that. That used to mean second class or less quality doctors but, now that Obamacare has destroyed the private system, Kaiser has much better doctors. Choose a HMO like Kaiser, and not all are that good, and you will be fine.

gilbar said...

back before O'Bama care was passed;
O'Bama was saying that it 'would save the country Billions' (or some such)
and, the Republicans said that; No, it would end up costing the country Billions

And NPR's "factchecker" ruled that the Republicans claim was FALSE, because
"O'Bama said that it would say the country Billions"

So, two political claims, and according to NPR; one was FALSE, because it contradicted the other.
AND, guess which one NPR felt was authoritative ?

Michael K said...

Of course there could be market experimentation with catastrophic care plus pay as you go plans, plus price disclosure, and other innovations.

That is happening to some degree. As the bureaucracy builds its empire, many older docs are opting out. They practice for cash but let you use your Medicare for hospital charges. They must drop Medicare to go to cash as they will be penalized or even arrested for offering to do for cash, at a lower price, what Medicare reimburses at 10% of the "retail" price. Not all are older. I met, a few years ago, a young woman geriatrics specialist in Iowa. Geriatrics is almost never seen in a private setting because Medicare so poorly pays. She was in private practice and had dropped Medicare because she was getting harassed for seeing her homebound patients too often. She was now taking Visa and Mastercard and making a decent living.

Usually young docs are too burdened by student debt to be brave. I used to ask my medical students if they had considered the military, which will pay tuition in return for four years service. None would and will be paying back debt until they are 60.

Sam L. said...

As I see it, Glenn has provided the poo for the WaPoo.

BJM said...

@Robert Cook

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S.Lewis

gilbar said...

Dr. K said...
I don't want to compose a course on health care economics but the only way you will be control of costs is to go back to indemnity style insurance and pay cash for routine care. I see little chance of that happening

Dr. K? Any comments about things like LASIK surgery, or Plastic surgery?
That is, things that insurance DOESN'T cover?
From the commercials i hear on the radio, the prices for THOSE types of surgery seem to be going (WAY!) down, not up

ngtrains said...

What would 'posting prices" do?

which prices? I'm surprised there has been no discussion of this.
The Dr 'fee' for 15 minutes is $95. Insurance pays $36.
which is the 'price'? I would pay the $95 because i don't have an
agreement with the provider.


why are not the prices set at a level that is more realistic?
(It does 'bug' me that the facility charge for the visit is about $75,
and the insurer pays about $70 of that.)

Michael K said...

Dr. K? Any comments about things like LASIK surgery, or Plastic surgery?

I don't have to tell you that those areas are optional and there is competition. When I was chief of surgery in a hospital, we caught a plastic surgeon trying to charge insurance for tummy tucks. He was calling them hernias and the insurance would pay for the hospital. We turned him in the the Medical Board, as I recall. Most plastic surgeons have office ORs to cut costs.

The move to "Concierge Medicine" is one reaction. The busiest hip replacement surgeon in Newport Beach is cash only, as is the guy in Santa Monica doing total joints. Harder to do that in general surgery but there is a guy in Tucson who does it. I know a few Orthopedic surgeons who are cash only, Medicare would solve a lot of problems if they went to something like the French system but politicians love to promise free stuff.

Rick said...

progressives push for Marxist methods of providing medical care but not for Marxist methods of food production and distribution. Or is that next in the progressive agenda?

The most important word for understanding the progressive agenda is "yet". Even the term progressive confirms this. They always push for more whether their past goals were achieved or denied, in the context of politics more government control. We've seen them move the goalposts on every issue. Decriminalizing homosexual acts led to gay marriage which lead to transexual insanity. Civil rights led to affirmative action which led to race preferences which leads to racial discrimination. HIPAA led to Obamacare which led to calls for universal Medicare (among others). Government paid schools led to government paid college which leads to government paid daycare and government busywork jobs.

So when they say they don't advocate government housing the "yet" should be understood.

There is always another step in the path to complete control.

Michael K said...

why are not the prices set at a level that is more realistic?

Contract violation. When my back pain was bad, I went to a pain doc who was an anesthesiologist I knew. An office visit was billed at $110. The EOB from Medicare disclosed he was paid $11. 90% discount.

Private insurance is as bad. If I do a hernia repair for you and charge $150 instead of $1500, I am violating my contract with them.

Medicare has force of law. By law, I have to give Medicare the "best price" of which they pay between 10 and 20%. If I start giving lower prices, they will "reset" my "profile" and pay me 10% of the lower amount. Pretty much the same with insurance although I have no experience with Obamacare. What has happened most places since Obamacare, the hospitals bought all the medical practices and the docs are all on salary.

My wife has chronic emphysema. We went to a pulmonary doc I have known for 30 years. He was not allowed to admit her for pneumonia. He sent us to the ER where we waited hours along with the illegals until the ER doc decided she should be admitted.

Different world. We moved to Tucson a year later.

Pianoman said...

New tag proposal: It's Different When It's Trump

tommyesq said...

[Harris] sidesteps the issue of whether most Americans should pay some kind of premium to get their health care, as they do currently under both Medicare and Obamacare...

If it is not freely available, it isn't a right.

Jaq said...

Hey look! The Trump era has been good for the people at the bottom.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F504eb474-3c2d-4736-8d02-083bca2c667d_286x176.png

Gandydancer said...

You left out the tag, "'Fact Check' Fraudulence"

The article concludes, "The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles"

LOL!

AZ Bob said...

Political messaging is in the eye of the beholder.

Jaq said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gandydancer said...

Michael K: "...Sort of like $1000 airplane toilets in the military. Same principle."

If only.

1000 airplane toilets wouldn't be half bad. It's the $640 plastic toilet seat (1986, or maybe earlier, dollars, btw) that starts sounding like a ripoff.

alanc709 said...

"Fact-checkers" are anything but. They tend to be political-alignment enforcers.

Jim at said...

And while this thread is about health care... - Freder

Actually, it isn't. Maybe that's your problem.

ALP said...

They're making statements about things they cannot know...
*************
Sums up nicely why I view politics as a type of religion. There is a significant amount of faith involved: who has the best predictions and speculation? I'll put my faith behind the one I believe to be right.

I would love to ask any presidential candidate to lay out the accuracy of their past predictions and speculations in one nice number.

Michael K said...

I would love to ask any presidential candidate to lay out the accuracy of their past predictions and speculations in one nice number.

This is where Trump has it all over them. He has built buildings and come in on time and under budget.

The last president with that sort of record was Eisenhower. Maybe the only other one.

Jaq said...

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

In the immortal word of Donald John Trump: “Wrong!”

“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

“Wrong!"

Jaq said...

https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-issues-pre-approval-on-all-statements-made-during-tonights-democratic-debate

RobinGoodfellow said...

Maureen Dowd has done the same thing, and for a while, I was trying to make “Dowdlerize” happenm but I digress.

I think James Taranto was using this neologism for a while.

RobinGoodfellow said...


Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Freder's brain has spent the last 37 years in a freezer somewhere


He should have kept in the crisper to avoid mummification.

Francisco D said...

What has happened most places since Obamacare, the hospitals bought all the medical practices and the docs are all on salary.

In suburban Chicago, the Quad Cities and Tucson, independent medical practices have gone by the wayside over the past 10 years. My ex and I had one of the few private neuropsychologist practices in Chicago. When we divorced and I moved to the Quad Cities, there were no real independent practice options. It was worse for MDs.

I was a Medicare biller for the past 15 years. Given the ridiculous reimbursement rate, many colleagues closed their practice to medicare (when the system allowed it). I took Medicare patients as a "paying it forward" approach, given that I planned to retire and go on Medicare at 65. I do not know how docs make a living here with the high percentage of older patients.

RobinGoodfellow said...

Blogger hawkeyedjb said...
"The two most overpriced service industries in America are healthcare and higher education."

Throw in housing and you have the grand trifecta of government-induced price inflation. And when government sets out to "fix" the problem... well, when every problem looks like a lack of money flowing to government, your wallet is the solution.


Someone has actually done the math (I’d provide a link but I read the article many months ago).

Healthcare, prescription drugs, home prices, and higher education are responsible for 88% of inflation since—I think—1990. You will note that all of these are heavily regulated and/or subsidized by the federal government.

RobinGoodfellow said...


Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Imagine of the Democrats had worked with Trump to get a reform of the ACA passed.

Imagine if Trump (or the Republican controlled Congress) had actually proposed a reform of the ACA. There was no proposal, other than outright repeal with no replacement, put forward (despite Trump's statements that he had a terrific plan).

7/30/19, 8:59 AM


Repeal with no replacement plan would have given us the status quo ante, which many found preferrable to Obama Care.

Amadeus 48 said...

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor was not a lie of the year, it was political messaging.

...Yeah! That's the ticket! Political messaging!

RobinGoodfellow said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"I found Ann's conniption over Inga rather amusing."

This provided the opportunity for me to take a break and amuse myself researching a word in the OED. "Conniption" seems like some sort of medical event, like a seizure.


I think this term is more common in the south. Although Stephen King used it in The Body.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
"My plan is free market capitalism."

So, you would remove the sheepdogs and leave the sheep to the wolves.

My wife is a nurse.

All of the doctors/nurses I know are better people than almost every politician.

So yes I would like to have a whole bunch of doctors/providers out there advertise and offer me services which I could freely choose from.

I would pick the ones with the most transparent pricing schedules. If someone screws me I have recourse in the private sector.

If the government screws up I know there will be nothing for me. And that is all that they do really.