Marcia Angell, "Why do drug companies charge so much? Because they can.": Not Exactly

Tweet

After 32-year-old Martin Shkreli, the chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the price of Daraprim, used to treat toxoplasmosis and on the market since 1953, from $13.50 to $750 a pill just two months after his company acquired the drug, Hillary Clinton was quick to lambaste the pharma industry for price gouging. On the heels of this controversy, Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School, also accuses the pharma industry of price gouging in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why do drug companies charge so much? Because they can.":

"Daraprim illustrates the way most drugs are priced: They are invented not by the companies that sell them now but by someone else. Then, like big fish swallowing little fish, larger companies either buy small firms outright or license promising drugs from them.

Very often, the original discovery occurs in a university lab with public funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), then licensed to a start-up company partly owned by the university and then to a large company. There is very little innovation at the big drug firms. Instead, their major creative output is trivial variations of top-selling medications that are already on the market (called 'me-too drugs'), to cash in with treatments just different enough to justify new patents.

. . . .

The public should demand something in return for all that governmental support. Other advanced countries regulate drug prices in one way or another: Some cap profits, some cap the rate of price increases, some have formularies that limit drugs in each class to those that are most cost-effective, and some regulate in more than one way. But they all have some form of regulation, and the result is much lower prices for the same drugs. In the United States, by contrast, Congress has blocked Medicare from negotiating the price of drugs or creating a formulary for patients. It’s time that we, too, move to stop price-gouging by the pharmaceutical industry — even when no one notices."

Well, not exactly . . .

Although Angell claims that the "major creative output" of big drug firms is "me-too-drugs," she fails, for example, to mention the immunotherapy cancer breakthrough being pursued by the industry.

And although Angell would have us believe that "very often" the original discovery occurs in university labs, she also fails to note that university studies in many instances are not reliable.

Even more important, Angell makes no reference to the cost of new drugs or the number of small biotechs that have fallen by the wayside while trying to reach the promised land. As observed in a Forbes article entitled "The Cost Of Creating A New Drug Now $5 Billion, Pushing Big Pharma To Change" by Matthew Herper:

"There’s one factor that, as much as anything else, determines how many medicines are invented, what diseases they treat, and, to an extent, what price patients must pay for them: the cost of inventing and developing a new drug, a cost driven by the uncomfortable fact than 95% of the experimental medicines that are studied in humans fail to be both effective and safe.

A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new medicine."

Unfortunately the next generation of life-saving immunotherapies comes with a hefty price, most of which is not being shouldered by the government. Kill this innovation because it is costly? I don't think so . . . all of which has nothing whatsoever to do with young Mr. Shkreli's behavior.

Paul Krugman, "Europe’s Many Economic Disasters": Sorry, But Without Children, Europe Is Terminal

By abandoning "austerity" and the euro, can Greece eke out a recovery? Paul Krugman seems to think so. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Europe’s Many Economic Disasters," Krugman writes:

"Why are there so many economic disasters in Europe? Actually, what’s striking at this point is how much the origin stories of European crises differ. Yes, the Greek government borrowed too much. But the Spanish government didn’t — Spain’s story is all about private lending and a housing bubble. And Finland’s story doesn’t involve debt at all. It is, instead, about weak demand for forest products, still a major national export, and the stumbles of Finnish manufacturing, in particular of its erstwhile national champion Nokia.

What all of these economies have in common, however, is that by joining the eurozone they put themselves into an economic straitjacket. Finland had a very severe economic crisis at the end of the 1980s — much worse, at the beginning, than what it’s going through now. But it was able to engineer a fairly quick recovery in large part by sharply devaluing its currency, making its exports more competitive. This time, unfortunately, it had no currency to devalue. And the same goes for Europe’s other trouble spots."

Got it! Greece should tell its lenders to go to hell, abandon the euro, and devalue newly printed drachmas. Hordes of tourists will arrive on its sunny shores, and its shipping industry will boom, all leading to economic recovery . . . or not.

In fact, the way I see it, both Greece and Europe are dying. As observed in a May 30, 2012 Forbes article entitled "What's Really Behind Europe's Decline? It's The Birth Rates, Stupid" by Joel Kotkin:

"Essentially, Spain and other Mediterranean countries bought into northern Europe’s liberal values, and low birthrates, but did so without the economic wherewithal to pay for it. You can afford a Nordic welfare state, albeit increasingly precariously, if your companies and labor force are highly skilled or productive. But Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal lack that kind of productive industry; much of the growth stemmed from real estate and tourism. Infrastructure development was underwritten by the EU, and the country has become increasingly dependent on foreign investors.

Unlike Sweden or Germany, Spain cannot count now on immigrants to stem their demographic decline and generate new economic energy. Although 450,000 people, largely from Muslim countries, still arrive annually, over 580,000 Spaniards are heading elsewhere — many of them to northern Europe and some to traditional places of immigration such as Latin America. Germany, which needs 200,000 immigrants a year to keep its factories humming, has emerged as a preferred destination."

Unfortunately, this article is just as correct today as it was in 2012.

More specifically regarding Greece, as observed by Nikos Konstandaras in a guest December 2013 New York Times op-ed entitled "Greece's Dismal Demographics":

"Deaths are outnumbering births, people are leaving the country, and the population is aging so fast that in a few decades Greece may be unable to produce enough wealth to take care of its people and may cease to be a viable nation state."

Or stated otherwise, unless this demographic trend in Greece, also prevalent throughout Europe, is reversed, neither austerity nor devaluation are going to rescue anyone.

Paul Krugman, "Hating Good Government": Once Again, the Wonders of Obamacare!

“In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.


. . . .


We won’t do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.”


- Barack Obama, June 2008

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hating Good Government," Paul Krugman writes:

"Meanwhile, the news on health reform keeps coming in, and it keeps being more favorable than even the supporters expected."

Now compare Krugman's  sanguine declaration with a November 14, 2014 New York Times article entitled "Cost of Coverage Under Affordable Care Act to Increase in 2015" by Robert Pear, Reed Abelson and Agustin Armendariz, which begins:

"The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans."

Also have a look at an October 23, 2014 Forbes article entitled "Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Has Increased Non-Group Premiums In Nearly All States" by Chris Conover, which informs us:

"However, a new study from the well-respected and non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research (and published by Brookings Institution), overcomes the limitations of these prior studies by examining what happened to premiums in the entire non-group market. The bottom line? In 2014, premiums in the non-group market grew by 24.4% compared to what they would have been without Obamacare. Of equal importance, this careful state-by-state assessment showed that premiums rose in all but 6 states (including Washington DC)."

The news on health reform is more favorable than even its supporters expected? Yeah, right!

And with free community college studies on their way - Who is going to end up paying for this? - good government just gets better and better.

Paul Krugman, "The Forever Slump": Comparing the US With Europe

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

- Muammar Gaddafi

Economics is an inexact science, but it becomes even less exact if you refuse to consider all of the variables.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Forever Slump," Paul Krugman again warns against an increase in US interest rates by the Federal Reserve. Explaining that Europe raised interest rates in 2011, but reversed course when it slid back into recession, Krugman cautions against the US making the same mistake:

"The good news is that Janet Yellen, the Fed chairwoman, understands the danger; she has made it clear that she would rather take the chance of a temporary rise in the inflation rate than risk hitting the brakes too soon, the way the E.C.B. did in 2011. The bad news is that she and her colleagues are under a lot of pressure to do the wrong thing from the too-muchers, who seem to have learned nothing from being wrong year after year, and are still agitating for higher rates."

I agree with Krugman that the US economic recovery is still fragile. Moreover, I don't see excessive demand, which could spur inflation, anywhere on the horizon. American unemployment is its lowest level since September 2008, but the decline also owes to the fact that the number of people seeking work has fallen dramatically. As observed in a January Washington Post article entitled "The biggest question facing the U.S. economy: Why are people dropping out of the workforce?" by Brad Plumer:

"The U.S. labor force is still shrinking rapidly. Back in 2007, 66 percent of Americans had a job or were actively seeking work. Today, that number is at 62.8 percent — the lowest level since 1977."

Also consider unemployment among youths, which, although down from a year ago, is still at a troublesome 14.3 percent.

The US economy is anything but robust, and I don't see any reason to raise interest rates.

But compare the US with Europe? It's time to be politically incorrect. As noted in a 2009 Forbes article entitled "The Integration Of Muslims In Europe":

"As Muslims are the fastest-growing group in Europe (by 2025, Muslims will make up 10% of Europe’s population, from 4% today), it is important that they are socially, politically and economically integrated. If not, the result will be the human and economic waste of unemployment, bitterness and possibly further radicalization and violence.

. . . .

In both France and the United Kingdom, Muslims’ economic integration has been poor. In both, unemployment is high (above 20% and sometimes approaching 40%) among Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and North Africans."

In fact, Muslims already account for some 10 percent of France's population and more than 70 percent of French prison inmates.

Was Gaddafi correct? Will Europe become a Muslim continent within a few decades? And if so, what will be the effect on productivity and employment? Time will truly tell.

Compare America's economy with that of Europe? I don't believe in comparing apples with oranges, i.e. America's unsustainable debt (nearing $17.7 trillion) with Europe's emerging demographic timebomb. Although both problems are grim, they are very different.

Paul Krugman, "Obama’s Other Success": Another Such Success Could Ruin the Country

"A few such Victories would Ruin the Army"

- British Lieutenant-Colonel James Abercrombie, dying from his wounds after the Battle of Bunker Hill

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama’s Other Success" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-financial-reform-is-working.html), subtitled "Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Is Working," Paul Krugman would have us believe that after five and a half years as president, Obama can point to two successes: Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Concerning Obamacare, Krugman writes:

"Although the enemies of health reform will never admit it, the Affordable Care Act is looking more and more like a big success. Costs are coming in below predictions, while the number of uninsured Americans is dropping fast, especially in states that haven’t tried to sabotage the program. Obamacare is working."

Fascinating. Needless to say, Krugman avoids reference to the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll. As observed a few days ago by Aaron Blake writing for The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/01/obamacare-hits-a-new-low-in-popularity-but-its-not-a-dominant-issue/):

"The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, which has been keeping constant tabs on public sentiment on the Affordable Care Act for nearly four years, shows 53 percent of Americans now have an unfavorable impression of the law. That's the highest on record and an increase of eight percentage points in one month."

Yes, I know: We shouldn't pay attention to what a majority of Americans think. They are stupid and don't know what's best for them. Obama knows best.

But then there was also a recent Forbes article entitled "How Obamacare Encourages Some Millennials To Become Uninsured" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/31/how-obamacare-encourages-some-24-year-olds-to-become-uninsured/) by Chris Conover, which informs us:

"About 30% of 24-year-olds have incomes at 275% or more of poverty. The chart demonstrates starkly how Obamacare makes life worse for such individuals. Prior to Obamacare, such individuals would have been slightly better off buying a non-qualified health plan with an actuarial value of 50%. But Obamacare gets rid of such plans, substituting plans with a higher actuarial value and more comprehensive benefits. So now the privilege of buying health insurance costs 44% more than the expected cost of remaining uninsured–and that’s AFTER taking into account the individual mandate penalty."

More about the cost of Obamacare? Have a look at a Washington Post article entitled "Older women bear the brunt of higher insurance costs under Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/06/24/older-women-bear-the-brunt-of-higher-insurance-costs-under-obamacare/) by Joann Weiner, which states:

"[W]omen age 55 to 64 will face a huge spike in cost when they go out to buy individual insurance on the federal exchange. These women bear the brunt of the increased premiums and out of pocket expenses after the Affordable Care Act."

Or in other words, not everyone is benefiting from Obamacare. In fact, there are those who are paying a very heavy price to subsidize this highly unpopular "success."

But what about Obama's other "success," Dodd-Frank, which was intended to prevent a recurrence of the events responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? Krugman writes:

"The Dodd-Frank reform bill has, if anything, received even worse press than Obamacare, derided by the right as anti-business and by the left as hopelessly inadequate. And like Obamacare, it’s certainly not the reform you would have devised in the absence of political constraints.

But also like Obamacare, financial reform is working a lot better than anyone listening to the news media would imagine. Let’s talk, in particular, about two important pieces of Dodd-Frank: creation of an agency protecting consumers from misleading or fraudulent financial sales pitches, and efforts to end 'too big to fail.'"

Krugman fails to understand that Dodd-Frank addresses past financial abuses, while ignoring newer manipulative and predatory tactics devised by hedge funds to line their pockets. With the cancellation of the Uptick Rule  (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-summers-of-our-discontent.html) and the advent of high-frequency trading (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/paul-krugman-now-thats-rich-hedge-funds.html), we have another catastrophe in the making, yet the Obama administration has done absolutely nothing to address these problems.

Obamacare and Dodd-Frank? Another such "success" could send the US into a death spiral.

Gail Collins, "The Curse of the Second": Worse Than Anything Fantasized by Karl Rove

"I didn't do it."

- Bart Simpson


"I didn't know it."

- Barack Obama


"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

- John Donne

It's all pretty grim in the West Wing. Whereas the IRS, Benghazi and NSA scandals couldn't sink Obama's popularity ratings, Obama's past promise that Americans would be able to keep their insurance plans appears ready to cripple the presidency. Unfortunately, the crash of the Obamacare website is only a preliminary reflection of the horrifyingly poor preparation undertaken to implement the new health care system, which could have disastrous consequences on the American economy beyond anything ever fantasized by Karl Rove.

But none of this prevents Gail Collins, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Curse of the Second" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/opinion/collins-the-curse-of-the-second.html?_r=0), from making light of Obama's plummeting popularity. Collins concludes:

"Perhaps the president could do a press event to celebrate the re-opening of the national parks and get lost for a few days in the Grand Canyon. Everybody would be reminded of how much they used to like him. He could come back in triumph and re-start the immigration reform bill. The cloud over the White House would lift and the website would suddenly be up and running.

I believe we have a plan."

Isn't she cute?

Meanwhile, in case you didn't notice, Putin has replaced Obama in the pole position of Forbes "World's Most Powerful People 2013" list (http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2013/10/30/the-worlds-most-powerful-people-2013/):

"Who’s more powerful: the autocratic leader of a former superpower or the handcuffed commander in chief of the most dominant country in the world? This year the votes for the World’s Most Powerful went to Russian President Vladimir Putin. He climbs one spot ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama, who held the title in 2012.

Putin has solidified his control over Russia while Obama’s lame duck period has seemingly set in earlier than usual for a two-term president — latest example: the government shutdown mess. Anyone watching this year’s chess match over Syria and NSA leaks has a clear idea of the shifting individual power dynamics."

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

And although I hate to be the one to shatter Collins's cheerfulness, she might also want to take note of the most recent numbers evidencing the ongoing financial demise of Obama's cheerleading section The New York Times, which tomorrow is expected to report a further decline in print and digital advertising revenue for the third quarter of 2013 (see: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304526204579099180254949844).

Can it possibly get worse? Just wait and see!

Paul Krugman, "The Big Kludge": Or What Happens When a Community Organizer Becomes President

Do you think Apple or General Electric would ever consider appointing a charismatic community organizer with no managerial experience as their CEO? I don't think so, because their boards of directors would be wise enough to know that any such appointment would likely lead to chaos within their companies.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Big Kludge" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opinion/krugman-the-big-kludge.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman ponders why America doesn't simply offer free medical insurance to all Americans. Krugman writes:

"Of course, we don’t have to imagine such a system, because it already exists. It’s called Medicare, it covers all Americans 65 and older, and it’s enormously popular. So why didn’t we just extend that system to cover everyone?

The proximate answer was politics: Medicare for all just wasn’t going to happen, given both the power of the insurance industry and the reluctance of workers who currently have good insurance through their employers to trade that insurance for something new. Given these political realities, the Affordable Care Act was probably all we could get — and make no mistake, it will vastly improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Still, the fact remains that Obamacare is an immense kludge — a clumsy, ugly structure that more or less deals with a problem, but in an inefficient way."

Hmm. "Make no mistake, [Obamacare] will vastly improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans"? In fact, Krugman is correct: Obamacare could ultimately improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans, but at the cost of tens of millions to other Americans, unless that cost is simply added to America's national debt, which is currently over $17 trillion and rising by the second.

Medicare and Medicaid are popular? For sure, but they are also plagued by fraud. As stated in a Forbes article entitled "Medicare And Medicaid Fraud Is Costing Taxpayers Billions" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/05/31/medicare-and-medicaid-fraud-is-costing-taxpayers-billions/2/) by Merrill Matthews:

"How much Medicare and Medicaid fraud is there? No one knows for sure. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report claiming to have identified $48 billion in what it termed as 'improper payments.' That’s nearly 10 percent of the $500 billion in outlays for that year. However, others, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, suggest that there is an estimated $60 to $90 billion in fraud in Medicare and a similar amount for Medicaid."

Yes, there is an ongoing problem involving the manner in which the US government has tackled health care issues.

But back to Krugman, who concludes his op-ed piece by declaring:

"A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn’t have to be that way."

Big government doesn't have to be "bad"? Possibly, but Obama is certainly doing his best to prove the opposite. As observed by Kathleen Parker in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The White House Comedy Club" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-white-house-comedy-club/2013/10/25/4765e700-3db2-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?hpid=z3):

"We reportedly eavesdrop on our allies and force citizens to buy insurance through a system we can’t manage. We concoct character-smearing rumors and attach them to our political adversaries. And that’s just the executive branch. Most important, we have damaged our bonds of trust with nations we need to keep as friends.

Any one of the above would make for a very bad week in governance. Combined, they suggest an uncomfortable conclusion to the world we purport to lead: The lights are flickering in the city on the hill, and our ship of state is foundering."

And as noted by Jackson Diehl in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Foreign policy based on fantasy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-foreign-policy-based-on-fantasy/2013/10/27/cfd74b06-3cc2-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html?hpid=z3):

"Israel and Saudi Arabia worry that Obama will strike a deal with Iran that frees it from sanctions without entirely extirpating its capacity to enrich uranium — leaving it with the potential to produce nuclear weapons. But more fundamentally, they and their neighbors are dismayed that the United States appears to have opted out of the regional power struggle between Iran and its proxies and Israel and the Arab states aligned with the United States. It is the prospect of waging this regional version of the Cold War without significant U.S. support that has prompted Saudi leaders to hint at a rupture with Washington — and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to talk more publicly than ever about Israel’s willingness to act alone."

Yes, Obama's Middle East policy has spawned antagonism from traditional American allies and chaos throughout the region. It is no accident that an al-Qaeda affiliate caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians in Iraq over the past two months (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/car-bombs-kill-scores-in-baghdad-in-sign-of-crisis-in-iraq/2013/10/27/7ae9c376-3cb3-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html?hpid=z1). Yup, we're talking about that same al-Qaeda, which, according to Obama while campaigning for reelection in 2012, was "decimated" and "on the run" (see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/intel-clashes-obamas-election-year-al-qaeda-claims/?page=all).

Bush was responsible for the mess in Iraq? I agree, but what does that matter five years into the Obama administration? Let's not forget who was responsible for escalating America's inane, boots-on-the-ground involvement in Afghanistan.

Big government does not necessarily have to be bad? I agree. But when big government is managed by a community organizer with no management experience, don't expect things to go right.

Instead, expect "I didn't do it," or its variant, "I didn't know about it." (Ask Jay Carney for a copy of the White House transcript of Obama's recent conversation with Merkel in which Obama tried to explain away US eavesdropping on Merkel's cell phone.)

Expect the "Big Kludge."

Paul Krugman, "Lousy Medicaid Arguments": Do You Believe in Obama, Krugman and the Tooth Fairy?

Do you remember how Obama recently stated in defense of the disastrous inauguration of Obamacare:

"Just a couple of weeks ago, Apple rolled out a new mobile operating system, and within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it. I don’t remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads or threatening to shut down the company if they didn’t."

Well, as reported today in a New York Times article entitled "Contractors See Weeks of Work on Health Site" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/us/insurance-site-seen-needing-weeks-to-fix.html) by Sharon LaFraniere, Ian Austen and Robert Pear:

"Federal contractors have identified most of the main problems crippling President Obama’s online health insurance marketplace, but the administration has been slow to issue orders for fixing those flaws, and some contractors worry that the system may be weeks away from operating smoothly, people close to the project say.

. . . .

Some specialists working on the project said the online system required such extensive repairs that it might not operate smoothly until after the Dec. 15 deadline for people to sign up for coverage starting in January, although that view is not universally shared.

. . . .

One specialist said that as many as five million lines of software code may need to be rewritten before the Web site runs properly.

. . . .

One major problem slowing repairs, people close to the program say, is that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency in charge of the exchange, is responsible for making sure that the separately designed databases and pieces of software from 55 contractors work together. It is not common for a federal agency to assume that role, and numerous people involved in the project said the agency did not have the expertise to do the job and did not fully understand what it entailed."

Thanks for the straight talk, Mr. President.

But none of the above prevented Paul Krugman, today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Lousy Medicaid Arguments" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/opinion/krugman-lousy-medicaid-arguments.html?_r=0), from claiming:

"It’s important to realize, however, that this botch has nothing to do with the law’s substance, and will get fixed."

Or in other words, Obamacare's Internet portal may have to be scrapped, but this has nothing to do with "the law's substance." Or does it?

If it is "not common for a federal agency to assume [the role of creating the Obamacare website], and numerous people involved in the project said the agency did not have the expertise to do the job and did not fully understand what it entailed," why should we believe that they have any more expertise in running a health insurance business? They don't . . .

What's that you say? Federal government experience amassed by way of administering Medicaid and Medicare? Yup, no waste or fraud there.

Regarding Obamacare "rate shock," Krugman's opinion piece continues:

"Remember 'rate shock'? A few months ago it was all the rage in right-wing circles, with supposed experts claiming that Americans were about to face huge premium increases.

It quickly became clear, however, that what these alleged experts were doing was comparing apples and oranges — and as Ezra Klein of The Washington Post pointed out, oranges that, in many cases, you can’t even buy. Specifically, they were comparing the premiums young, healthy men were paying before reform with the premiums everyone — including those who previously couldn’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions — will pay under the new system. Oh, and they also weren’t taking into account the subsidies many Americans will receive, reducing their costs.

Now people are signing up for policies on state exchanges and, to a limited extent, on the federal exchange. Where are the cries of rate shock?"

Ah yes, "the subsidies many Americans will receive." But as Krugman well knows, there is no zero-sum game at work here. If someone pays less, someone else must pay more, unless, of course, you simply add the amount to America's growing $17 trillion national debt. Where are the cries of rate shock? Let's wait until the system is up and running, perhaps sometime in 2014, before drawing conclusions.

It's worth noting that Avik Roy wrote in a Forbes article entitled "Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/):

"A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away."

So whom do you believe, Obama, Krugman and the tooth fairy or Roy?

David Brooks, "A Nation of Mutts": Immigration Is Not As Simple As David Thinks

Meet Arnold, probably a mutt, but when asked, and depending upon my mood, I alternately explain that Arnold, 170 pounds of dog, is an Anatolian shepherd or a direwolf. I also tell small children that he is a baby polar bear, but that he doesn't yet know this and shouldn't be told, because he still thinks that he is a dog. Arnold is indeed a sweetheart.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Nation of Mutts" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/brooks-a-nation-of-mutts.html?_r=0), David Brooks informs us:

"Soon, we will no longer be an outpost of Europe, but a nation of mutts, a nation with hundreds of fluid ethnicities from around the world, intermarrying and intermingling. Americans of European descent are already a minority among 5-year-olds. European-Americans will be a minority over all in 30 years at the latest, and probably sooner."

Brooks's conclusion:

"On the whole, this future is exciting. The challenge will be to create a global civilization that is, at the same time, distinctly American. Immigration reform or not, the nation of mutts is coming."

As regards this intermingling and in response to an earlier Brooks's op-ed entitled "Speed of Ascent" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/opinion/brooks-speed-of-ascent.html?_r=0), I wrote:

"Which brings me to my next inane question: Is the President black or white? I suppose you might observe that today it matters less than ever. Consider the ethnic backgrounds of: Vin Diesel, Vanessa Hudgens, Halle Berry, Beyoncé Knowles, Tiger Woods, Will Smith, Lenny Kravitz and a host of other remarkably talented celebrities (see: http://www.imdb.com/list/SmPQhHBlI0g/).

I am leaving would-be Native American Senator Elizabeth Warren off the list, but it should nevertheless be apparent that America is growing more integrated and more tolerant with the passing of the years."

There is also much to be said for immigration, which can also serve as an invigorating elixir. As stated by Brooks today:

"Immigration boosts economic dynamism, and more immigration would boost it more. There would also be a lot of upward striving. Immigrant groups tend to work harder than native groups. They save more. They start business at higher rates than natives."

However, immigration can also be a double-edged sword, which can bring trouble to which Americans are unaccustomed. One need look no further than the Tsarnaev brothers and the Boston Marathon bombing. "Honor killings" in the United States? Yes, this horror has arrived (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57409395-504083/honor-killing-under-growing-scrutiny-in-the-u.s/).

And as for immigrants working harder than native groups, Brooks would be wise to have a gander at Europe, where unemployed immigrants are stretching the social welfare system to the limit. As reported by Forbes in 2009 (see: http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/france-uk-muslims-business_oxford.html):

"In both France and the United Kingdom, Muslims’ economic integration has been poor. In both, unemployment is high (above 20% and sometimes approaching 40%) among Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and North Africans. Earnings are also weak: According to 2000 data, male Bangladeshis were earning about three-quarters the average wage."

And as reported by the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/religion-and-politics/europe-integrating-islam/p8252):

"Despite signs that Muslims are beginning to succeed in business and academia in countries such as France and Germany, many analysts say most of Western Europe's Muslims are poorly integrated into society. They cite closed ethnic neighborhoods, high crime rates in Muslim communities, calls for use of sharia law in Europe, the wearing of the veil, and other examples as evidence of a conflict with European values."

You see, David, the issue of immigration is not a cut and dry as you think. A recent Pew Research Center survey (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx) found that 1% of US Muslims "say violence against civilians is often justified," and 7% say that such violence "is sometimes justified" - these are horrifying numbers. In order for immigration to work, tolerance and some shared values are required.

Oh my goodness! Have I said something wrong that is "not conducive to the public good" and which will bar me from entering the UK (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/geller-and-spencer-refused-entry-into.html)? I suppose that I will have to take that risk.

Obama: A Penny (Pritzker) for Your Thoughts?

Do you remember Obama's "Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ethics-commitments-executive-branch-personnel), which required US executive agency appointees on or after January 20, 2009 to sign a pledge "that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate's qualifications, competence, and experience"? Note that the order applied to appointees, but not to Obama himself.

Back in June 2011, The Telegraph had already observed that something peculiar was afoot at the Obama White House (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8578546/Barack-Obama-campaign-donors-rewarded-with-government-jobs.html):

"Nearly 80 per cent of President Barack Obama's top campaign donors have been rewarded with senior United States government jobs, according to a new study.

The appointments have taken place despite Mr Obama's campaign promises that he would break with long-established practice and hire people based on their qualifications and experience rather than making patronage appointments.

. . . .

But a Study for the Centre for Public Integrity has found that 27 out of the 36 people who 'bundled' donations of more than $500,000 . . . received jobs such as ambassadorships or economic advisory roles. About fifty per cent of bundlers who raised more than $200,000 . . . got jobs.

Louis Susman, a Chicago investment banker with no diplomatic background but who raised $300,000 . . . for the Obama campaign, was appointed American ambassador to London in July 2009.

At the time Robert Gibbs, then White House press secretary, made light of the appointment by saying Susman was qualified for the post 'because he speaks English'.

Donald Gips, a Colorado businessman, was appointed ambassador to South Africa in mid- 2009 after raising $500,000 . . . for Obama. Steven Westlym, a green energy entrepreneur also raised $500,000 for Obama and has since seen four companies within his business interest receive more than $500 million . . . in loans, grants, or stimulus money from the Energy Department.

Julius Genachowski, a law school friend of Mr Obama, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He raised $500,000 . . . for the Obama campaign and he and his wife have visited the White House more than 100 times since the appointment according to White House logs.

Charles Rivkin, an entertainment company president, raised more than $500,000 for Obama's campaign, and became ambassador to France.

Cynthia Stroum, a wealth Seattle businesswoman and large campaigner for Obama who was appointed to be ambassador to Luxembourg resigned in February 2011 after a State Department report accused her of a 'confrontational management style' that led to an 'extremely difficult, unhappy, and uncertain work environment', allegations she denied."

Sweet.

Now in 2013, Obama is appointing Forbes 400 Member Penny Pritzker, who has an estimated net worth of $1.85 billion, as commerce secretary. As reported by Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/05/02/obama-to-nominate-forbes-400-member-penny-pritzker-as-commerce-secretary/):

"Pritzker ran Obama’s fundraising operation in 2008. While she took less of a leadership role during his 2012 re-election campaign, she still gave $117,000 to the effort and bundled more than a half million in contributions, according to OpenSecrets.org. She also donated $250,000 to his most recent inauguration."

Any link between the donations and the appointment? No way. Not Obama. He wants Penny for her thoughts.