David Brooks, "The Incredible Shrinking Obamacare": Only Half the Story

Tweet

Will Obamacare comprise a part of President Obama's legacy? No, unless that legacy is deemed to consist of impotence (Syria), appeasement (Iran), and half-baked notions of governance costing the US trillions of dollars (Obamacare). Now even David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Incredible Shrinking Obamacare," is referring to a possible Obamacare "death spiral." Brooks writes:

"Only about 12 million people are in exchanges. More important, the exchanges are attracting sicker, poorer people, who drain money, and are not attracting the healthier people who pour money in.

Many insurers are suffering catastrophic losses and pulling out. As James Capretta of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, Aetna has lost $430 million since January 2014 on insurance plans sold through Obamacare and is withdrawing from 11 of its 15 states. United Healthcare has lost $1.3 billion on the exchanges and will cut its participation to three states from 34.

That means less coverage; 24 million Americans still lack health insurance. That means less competition. Before too long, a third of the exchanges will have just one insurer in them. That also means higher premiums. Blue Cross Blue Shield has requested a 62 percent increase for next year in Tennessee and an average 65 percent increase in Arizona. Some experts put the national requested increase at 23 percent.

. . . .

The next president will have to deal with all this, especially if the exchanges go into a death spiral, even though the subject has been basically ignored in the campaign."

And what happens if the exchanges go into a death spiral? Who steps in? At what cost? And what will this do to America's expanding budget deficit, which recently reached its highest level in two years? How much will this add to America's burgeoning national debt?

It's not just Obamacare that is facing a death spiral.

Is either Hillary or Donald equipped to pull the US economy out of its dive? Good luck with that.

Thomas Friedman, "Win, Lose, but No Compromise": Shiites and Sunnis?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Win, Lose, but No Compromise," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman begins by asking, "Are we all just Shiites and Sunnis now?" Wow, I thought to myself after reading this query, a Times columnist is finally willing to consider Turkey's armored invasion of Syria and the battles it is has been waging there with the Kurds, America's most potent ally on the ground in its war against ISIS. I was also certain that Tom would bestow upon us his benighted wisdom concerning Iran's recent placement of a Russian-made S-300 air defense battery to protect its Fordo nuclear facility. (If Iran has no intention of violating its unsigned nuclear agreement with Obama, why should there be any need to install such a sophisticated missile system at this nuclear complex built into a mountain?) But in fact "Shiites and Sunnis" was only a lead-in to Friedman's take on the state of American politics:

"More and more of our politics resembles the core sectarian conflict in the Middle East between these two branches of Islam, and that is not good. Because whether you’re talking about Shiites and Sunnis — or Iranians and Saudis, Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Kurds — a simple binary rule dominates their politics: 'I am strong, why should I compromise? I am weak, how can I compromise?'"

Given the unwillingness of Democrats and Republicans to compromise, Friedman goes on to ask:

"How will we improve Obamacare? How will we invest in infrastructure? How will we recreate the compromise on immigration that a few brave Republican and Democratic legislators tried in 2013? How will we get corporate tax reform, a carbon tax and some fiscal policy that we so desperately need to propel the economy and control the deficit?"

Improve Obamacare? Needless to say, no mention by Tom of Aetna's decision to eliminate a vast majority of its Obamacare business. In fact, more and more commentators are telling us that Obamacare has entered into a "death spiral."

How will we invest in infrastructure? Good question. By the time Obama leaves office, US debt will have reached some $20 trillion, and, as we were recently told by the Congressional Budget Office:

"In fiscal year 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase in relation to economic output for the first time since 2009, CBO estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged—an assumption underlying CBO’s baseline projections—deficits would continue to mount over the next 10 years, and debt held by the public would rise from its already high level.

CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2016 has increased since the agency issued its previous estimates in March, primarily because revenues are now expected to be lower than earlier anticipated. In contrast, the cumulative deficit through 2026 is smaller in CBO’s current baseline projections than the shortfall projected in March, chiefly because the agency now projects lower interest rates and thus lower outlays for interest payments on federal debt. Nevertheless, by 2026, the deficit is projected to be considerably larger relative to gross domestic product (GDP) than its average over the past 50 years."

Or stated otherwise, it's not only Obamacare that's in a death spiral.

Paul Krugman, "Who Hates Obamacare?": Krugman Trashes Bernie Sanders

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Who Hates Obamacare?," Paul Krugman again makes the case for Obamacare, while taking a swipe at Bernie Sanders. Krugman writes (my emphasis in red):

"[H]ealth costs have risen much more slowly than before.

. . . .

The number of uninsured Americans has dropped sharply, especially in states that have tried to make the law work. But millions are still uncovered, and in some cases high deductibles make coverage less useful than it should be."

Health care costs have risen much more slowly? Krugman provides a link to a September 2015 White House press release subtitled "Summary: New data show that slow growth in health care costs is continuing in 2015." Needless to say, Krugman is careful not to observe, as reported in December 2015, that Obamacare premiums will rise by an average of some 13 percent in 2016. Nice try, Paul.

Obamacare coverage is "less useful" than it should be? Oh really? How about "useless," owing to deductibles, as reported by The New York Times?

Re Sanders, Krugman goes on to say:

"And speaking of demonization: One unpleasant, ugly side of this debate has been the tendency of some Sanders supporters, and sometimes the campaign itself, to suggest that anyone raising questions about the senator’s proposals must be a corrupt tool of vested interests.

. . . .

The truth is that whomever the Democrats nominate, the general election is mainly going to be a referendum on whether we preserve the real if incomplete progress we’ve made on health, financial reform and the environment. The last thing progressives should be doing is trash-talking that progress and impugning the motives of people who are fundamentally on their side."

But let's leave progressive politics, "hate" and "trash-talking" out of the picture for a moment. Instead, consider Robert Samuelson's January 31, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The dangerous deficits our candidates aren’t talking about," in which we are told:

"Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its annual 'Budget and Economic Outlook' report — a detailed examination of White House and congressional policies — and hardly anyone paid heed. The inattention is striking because the report was full of sobering news.

Consider:

●Cumulative deficits over 10 years (2016 to 2025) are now projected at $8.5 trillion, up from a $7 trillion estimate in August. Federal debt held by the public — the total of all past deficits — is projected at $22.4 trillion in 2025; in 2016, it’s $13.9 trillion. By 2025, the debt would equal 84 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) compared with 74 percent in 2015. Many economists think the rising debt unsustainable.

●Almost half the spending growth over the decade comes from two programs: Social Security and Medicare. Much of the rest stems from other health-care programs (Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act) and from interest on the debt."

Samuelson's conclusion:

"The leading [presidential] candidates are playing Russian roulette with the nation’s future, assuming that deficits can be ignored because most Americans (or so it seems) would prefer it that way."

Allow me to summarize the foregoing in simple English: America is sinking into an ocean of red ink from which it will never emerge, and Obamacare is one of the chief culprits. As for me, I couldn't give a damn if Hillary or Bernie is more "progressive."

Paul Krugman, "Health Reform Realities": Obamacare is a "Kludge"

Tweet

Do you recall Paul Krugman's December 5, 2013 New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama Gets Real," in which he declared:

"HealthCare.gov is working much better, people are signing up in growing numbers, and the whole mess is already receding in the rear-view mirror."

Well, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Health Reform Realities," Krugman acknowledges that Obamacare is less than perfect:

"Health reform is the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. It was the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare was established in the 1960s. It more or less achieves a goal — access to health insurance for all Americans — that progressives have been trying to reach for three generations. And it is already producing dramatic results, with the percentage of uninsured Americans falling to record lows.

Obamacare is, however, what engineers would call a kludge: a somewhat awkward, clumsy device with lots of moving parts. This makes it more expensive than it should be, and will probably always cause a significant number of people to fall through the cracks."

Recommending against a drastic overhaul of Obamacare, Krugman concludes:

"So progressives must set some priorities. And it’s really hard to see, given this picture, why it makes any sense to spend political capital on a quixotic attempt at a do-over, not of a political failure, but of health reform — their biggest victory in many years."

Got it: Progressives' "biggest victory in many years" is a "kludge." Congratulations to one and all.

But more to the point, how does one gloat that "the percentage of uninsured Americans [is] falling to record lows" without also acknowledging that Obamacare's high deductibles make it unaffordable for many Americans to go to a doctor, and that Obamacare premiums will rise by an average of some 13 percent in 2016?

How about just a little objectivity, Paul?

Paul Krugman, "The Obama Boom": The Worst Opening Stock Market Week in US History

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Obama Boom," Paul Krugman acknowledges that President Obama is not responsible for gains in US private-sector employment since 2010:

"Does President Obama deserve credit for these gains? No. In general, presidents and their policies matter much less for the economy’s performance than most people imagine. Times of crisis are an exception, and the Obama stimulus plan enacted in 2009 made a big positive difference. But that stimulus faded out fast after 2010, and has very little to do with the economy’s current situation."

On the other hand, in a patent reference to Obamacare, Krugman would have us know:

"But for those who don’t know much about either history or the world outside America, the Obama economy offers a powerful lesson in the here and now. From a conservative point of view, Mr. Obama did everything wrong, afflicting the comfortable (slightly) and comforting the afflicted (a lot), and nothing bad happened. We can, it turns out, make our society better after all."

Obamacare is the boon to society that Krugman would have us believe? Not everyone agrees. In a blog for The Hill entitled "ObamaCare's predictable collapse," Rick Manning writes:

"ObamaCare co-ops were supposed to provide lower cost health insurance alternatives because they weren't driven by the profit motive. Now, just a couple of years after the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented, 12 out of 23 co-ops have failed, costing taxpayers $1.2 billion in defaulted loan repayments. The failure rate even outstrips the Labor Department's 2011 projections of 36 percent, and as The Carpenters used to sing, 'We've Only Just Begun.'

. . . .

That ol' promise that healthcare costs would go down by $2,500 for an average family took another hit of reality as a Wall Street Journal analysis of 2016 rates showed that premiums for individual health plans are going up, with double-digit increases more typical than not.

. . . .

Besides skyrocketing healthcare costs, less healthcare service available, anticipated health insurance company abandonment of the system, patients being thrown off coverage and losing their doctors, and the failure of the co-op system, ObamaCare is doing just fine."

Oops.

But beyond Obamacare, how can anyone refer to an "Obama Boom" without alluding to the worst US opening stock market week in history, which has many wondering if another recession is on the way? I suppose that if you've been awarded a Nobel Prize in economics, you can get away with looking the other way and writing this hogwash.

Paul Krugman, "Elections Have Consequences": Lipstick on the Obamacare Pig

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Elections Have Consequences," Paul Krugman would have us know that higher taxation of affluent Americans by the Obama administration has had colossal economic benefits:

"The point, of course, was not to punish the rich but to raise money for progressive priorities, and while the 2013 tax hike wasn’t gigantic, it was significant. Those higher rates on the 1 percent correspond to about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both food stamps and budget office estimates of this year’s net outlays on Obamacare. So we’re not talking about something trivial."

Ah yes, progressive priorities. I suppose that means cutting US military outlays in the face of Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Islamic State aggression, while paying $19 million in 2014 to government workers suspended from their jobs.

The tax hikes have made a difference? If so, why has America's national debt soared to an unsustainable $18.8 trillion, or more than $58,000 for every American citizen under Obama? It is well worth remembering how, on July 3, 2008, Obama declared:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Krugman continues:

"Speaking of Obamacare, that’s another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had gone the other way. Instead, the program went into effect at the beginning of 2014. And the effect on health care has been huge: according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of uninsured Americans fell 17 million between 2012 and the first half of 2015, with further declines most likely ahead."

The number of "uninsured Americans" has fallen; however, what good is insurance if high deductibles effectively render health care unaffordable?

How about just a tiny bit of objectivity, Paul? Pretty please?

Hillary Berates Obama for America's Staggering National Debt

Tweet

Speaking last week in Keota, Iowa, Hillary declared:

"When you - When you - Something is not broke, don’t break it. Right?

And this school district and these schools throughout Iowa are doing a better-than-average job. Now, I wouldn’t keep any school open that wasn’t doing a better-than-average job."

Of course, everyone seized upon the fact that Hillary was calling for the closure of half of Iowa's schools, but what about, "Something is not broke, don’t break it"? I can only understand this to mean that Hillary was berating President Obama for allowing America's debt to rise to an unsustainable $18.8 trillion, or more than $157,000 per taxpayer.

A bit like Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes." When does the world wake up to the fact that America is indeed broke and requires "fixing"? And this begins with Obamacare. As the Chicago Tribune observed on Christmas:

"[T]he next president and Congress have no choice but to fix Obamacare, a law now known for rocketing premiums, narrowing networks of coverage, flummoxed consumers and insolvent insurers."

Good luck!

Paul Krugman, "Health Reform Lives!": Blowing Smoke Up Obama's Arse

Tweet

As noted in my prior blog entry, in the 18th century there was a medical device called a tobacco smoke enema, which was used to resuscitate drowning victims. However, it was ultimately discovered that blowing tobacco smoke up dead persons arses had no medical benefit, and from there, "blowing smoke up your ass" was born, i.e. telling someone a lie that she/he wants to hear.

Well, In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Health Reform Lives!," Paul Krugman blows smoke up the president's arse. Claiming that Obamacare remains a success notwithstanding recent "not-great" news concerning Obama's legacy-creating reform of America's health care system,  Krugman writes:

"Sooner or later, of course, there were bound to be some negative surprises. And we’re now, finally, getting a bit of bad, or at least not-great, news about health reform.

First, premiums are going up for next year, because insurers are finding that their risk pool is somewhat sicker and hence more expensive than they expected. There’s a lot of variation across states, but the average increase will be around 11 percent. That’s a slight disappointment, but it’s not shocking, given both the good news of the previous two years and the long-term tendency of insurance premiums to rise 5-10 percent a year.

Second, some Americans who bought low-cost insurance plans have been unpleasantly surprised by high deductibles. This is a real issue, but it shouldn’t be exaggerated. All allowed plans cover preventive services without a deductible, and many plans cover other health services as well. Furthermore, additional financial aid is available to lower-income families to help cover such gaps. Some people may not know about these mitigating factors — that’s the problem with a fairly complex system — but awareness should improve over time."

An average increase of only 11 percent in 2016? Remarkably, this Nobel prize winner fails to observe that inflation in the US is currently running at some 0.2 percent. Or stated otherwise, an 11 percent increase in the cost of health care insurance is disastrous for many Americans.

"[S]ome Americans who bought low-cost insurance plans have been unpleasantly surprised by high deductibles"? As Robert Pear wrote in a November 14, 2015 New York Times article entitled [my italics] "Many Say High Deductibles Make Their Health Law Insurance All but Useless":

"Obama administration officials, urging people to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, have trumpeted the low premiums available on the law’s new marketplaces.

But for many consumers, the sticker shock is coming not on the front end, when they purchase the plans, but on the back end when they get sick: sky-high deductibles that are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage.

'The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,' said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. 'We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.'

In many states, more than half the plans offered for sale through HealthCare.gov, the federal online marketplace, have a deductible of $3,000 or more, a New York Times review has found."

Sorry, Paul, but Obamacare is proving as effective as a tobacco smoke enema.

David Brooks, "Great News! We’re Not Doomed to Soaring Health Care Costs": And the Moon Is Made of Green Cheese

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Great News! We’re Not Doomed to Soaring Health Care Costs," David Brooks writes:

"If health care costs start to rise again the way they did before, then health care spending will swallow the economy and bankrupt the federal government. If they are contained, then suddenly there’s a lot more money for everything else, like schools, antipoverty efforts and wages."

Well, I have news for David: US national debt now exceeds an unsustainable $18.53 trillion, amounting to some $57,500 for every American man, woman and child. This compares with some $30,000 for every man, woman and child in America in June 2008, which, at the time, elicited presidential candidate Obama's declaration:

"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Bankrupt the federal government? I don't think so. It can always print worthless money.

David acknowledges that there is controversy concerning the direction of health care costs:

"There’s still a lot of uncertainty about which side of the debate is right. The most recent numbers have indicated a scary surge in health care prices, and some firms are projecting 6.5 percent inflation for 2016. While parts of the law reduce spending, other parts may lead to more spending, especially as the industry gets more concentrated."

Only 6.5 percent inflation for 2016? Brooks might want to read a New York Times article entitled "Many Need to Shop Around on HealthCare.gov as Prices Jump, U.S. Says" by Robert Pear and Abby Goodnough, which last week informed us:

"In Tennessee, the state insurance commissioner approved a 36 percent rate increase for the largest health insurer in the state’s individual marketplace. In Iowa, the commissioner approved rate increases averaging 29 percent for the state’s dominant insurer.

Health insurance consumers logging into HealthCare.gov on Sunday for the first day of the Affordable Care Act’s third open enrollment season may be in for sticker shock, unless they are willing to shop around. Federal officials acknowledged on Friday that many people would need to pick new plans to avoid substantial increases in premiums.

. . . .

Rates will rise next year by an average of 4 percent in California, one of the few states that actively negotiate prices, state officials said. In New York, state officials said rates would rise by an average of 7 percent. In Florida, consumers will see increases averaging 9.5 percent, the state said.

But in Hawaii, the insurance commissioner this month approved rate increases averaging 27 percent for the Hawaii Medical Service Association and 34 percent for Kaiser Permanente health plans."

Yes, I would call that "scary."

Brooks's conclusion:

"We seem to be making at least some incremental progress toward a structural reduction in health care inflation. Many Americans are feeling gloomy about accomplishing anything these days, but progress is possible. We haven’t whipped health care inflation, or defeated our intractable budget issues. But the evidence suggests we’re landing a few serious blows."

And the moon is made of green cheese.

Paul Krugman, "A Heckuva Job": Evenhanded? Yeah, Right!

Tweet

Is Krugman biased against Republicans? Heck no . . . if you ask Paul.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Heckuva Job," Paul Krugman sets out to deprecate Republican presidential hopefuls Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal and Donald Trump, while ignoring any and all Democratic foibles. Krugman explains in his own defense:

"I know, now I’m supposed to be evenhanded, and point out equivalent figures on the Democratic side. But there really aren’t any; in modern America, cults of personality built around undeserving politicians seem to be a Republican thing.

True, some liberals were starry-eyed about Mr. Obama way back when, but the glitter faded fast, and what was left was a competent leader with some big achievements under his belt – most notably, an unprecedented drop in the number of Americans without health insurance. And Hillary Clinton is the subject of a sort of anti-cult of personality, whose most ordinary actions are portrayed as nefarious. (No, the email thing doesn’t rise to the level of a 'scandal.')"

"An unprecedented drop in the number of Americans without health insurance"? Wonderful! And the cost? Krugman forgets to mention that Obamacare will add more than a quarter of a trillion dollars of insurance overhead through 2022 and that insurance costs are soon expected to rise dramatically, but why should that matter to someone who believes "Debt Is Good"?

Hillary's "email thing doesn’t rise to the level of a 'scandal'"? You see, the FBI routinely investigates the non-scandalous transfer of classified government data via a private server, probably breached by foreign security services and subsequently wiped clean. And as acknowledged even by the New Yorker article which Krugman references above, "it is conceivable that more striking evidence of deception or serious neglect may eventually surface."

This is almost on a par with Krugman's 2011 claim that "Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point." Give it a rest, Paul!

Dana Milbank, Obama to Supreme Court: You wouldn’t dare kill Obamacare: Should the Supreme Court Be Guided by Polls?

"In a democracy the legislative impulse and its expression should come from those popularly chosen to legislate, and equipped to devise policy, as courts are not. The pressure on legislatures to discharge their responsibility with care, understanding and imagination should be stiffened, not relaxed. Above all, they must not be encouraged in irresponsible or undisciplined use of language."

- Felix Frankfurter, "Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes," The Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture, March 18, 1947

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama to Supreme Court: You wouldn’t dare kill Obamacare," Dana Milbank notes President Obama's admonition to the US Supreme Court on Tuesday not to overturn the Affordable Care Act later this month. Citing statistics from a Kaiser Family Foundation poll indicating that Obamacare has become more favorable to Americans, Milbank writes:

"The conservative justices, like conservative critics of the law generally, are unlikely to be persuaded by Obama’s recitation of the merits of the law, which he repeated at length Tuesday. But they may well be reluctant to upend a law that now has broad acceptance in American society.

. . . .

I have faith that the conservative justices, even if they detest Obamacare, have no wish to throw the country into chaos."

I'm certain that the conservative justices have no desire to cause mayhem. On the other hand, are they empowered to twist the explicit language of the statute into something the words don't say?

The jury is still out . . .

Paul Krugman, "Ideology and Integrity": Obamacare Is a Success?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Ideology and Integrity," Paul Krugman tells us that the 2016 US presidential election "should turn almost entirely on the issues," but "intellectual integrity" should also matter. Regarding Hillary, Krugman writes:

"The press, I’m sorry to say, tends to punish open-mindedness, because gotcha journalism is easier and safer than policy analysis. Hillary Clinton supported trade agreements in the 1990s, but now she’s critical. It’s a flip-flop! Or, possibly, a case of learning from experience, which is something we should praise, not deride."

Of course, no mention by Krugman of issues of "intellectual integrity" arising from the management and conduct of the Clinton Foundation, or Hillary's refusal to answer questions regarding Uranium One.

Instead, Krugman would have us examine the positions of Republican presidential candidates, who have yet to flip-flop on Obamacare:

"Meanwhile, as far as I can tell no important Republican figure has admitted that none of the terrible consequences that were supposed to follow health reform — mass cancellation of existing policies, soaring premiums, job destruction — has actually happened."

Ah yes, that remarkable revolution in American health care. Needless to say, Krugman makes no reference to a lead article in today's Washington Post by Lena H. Sun and Niraj Chokshi, whose title "Nearly half of Obamacare exchanges are struggling over their future" speaks for itself.

And as long as we're talking about intellectual integrity, I'm still waiting for Krugman to explain away his declaration in an October 6, 2011 Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

Sorry, Paul, but "intellectual integrity" in politics and journalism ceased to exist many, many years ago.

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, "When Government Succeeds": A Triumph of Imagination Over Intelligence

"Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence."

- H.L. Mencken

Paul Krugman must sure as heck love the Obama administration.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "When Government Succeeds," Paul Krugman crows over the successes of the Obama administration, among them Obamacare:

"Then there’s health reform. As usual, much of the national dialogue over the Affordable Care Act is being dominated by fake scandals drummed up by the enemies of reform. But if you look at the actual results so far, they’re remarkably good. The number of Americans without health insurance has dropped sharply, with around 10 million of the previously uninsured now covered; the program’s costs remain below expectations, with average premium rises for next year well below historical rates of increase; and a new Gallup survey finds that the newly insured are very satisfied with their coverage. By any normal standards, this is a dramatic example of policy success, verging on policy triumph."

Obamacare is "a  dramatic example of policy success, verging on policy triumph"? Maybe, if you decide to ignore a couple of things:

• Let's ignore the farcical launch of HealthCare.gov.

• Let's also ignore, "If you like your health care plan or health care provider, you can keep them."

• Let's also ignore Friday's New York Times article entitled "Cost of Coverage Under Affordable Care Act to Increase in 2015" by Robert Pear, Reed Abelson and Agustin Armendariz.

• Let's also ignore reduced enrollment goals for 2015.

• Let's also ignore the possible "enrollment" of persons who haven't paid their premiums.

• Let's also ignore the shoddy drafting of the Affordable Care Act, acknowledged by Krugman a week ago, which could well result in the ultimate unravelling of the law.

• Let's also ignore the law's 42 changes, including delayed implementation of the employer mandate.

• But most important, let's ignore MIT Professor Gruber's take on Obamacare:

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

Obamacare is a "triumph"? Krugman is obviously head over heels in love.

Charles Krauthammer, "The Gruber Confession": The Arrogance of Academic Liberalism

Go to the homepage of The New York Times and do a search for "Jonathan Gruber": You won't find his name. Now, go to the opinion pages of the Times and do the same search: Once again, his name does not appear [David Brooks is writing about George Eliot ("The Agency Moment"), and Paul Krugman is telling us about a carbon emissions agreement between the US and China ("China, Coal, Climate")].

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, however, believes that Gruber deserves mention. In an opinion piece entitled "The Gruber Confession," Krauthammer derides "the arrogance of an academic liberalism, so perfectly embodied in the Gruber Confession, that rules in the name of a citizenry it mocks, disdains and deliberately, contemptuously deceives." Krauthammer writes of the decision of the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell:

"Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case claiming that the administration is violating its own health-care law, which clearly specifies that subsidies can be given only to insurance purchased on 'exchanges established by the state.' Just 13 states have set up such exchanges. Yet the administration is giving tax credits to plans bought on the federal exchange — serving 37 states — despite what the law says.

If the plaintiffs prevail, the subsidy system collapses and, with it, Obamacare itself. Which is why the administration is frantically arguing that 'exchanges established by the state' is merely sloppy drafting, a kind of legislative typo. And that the intent all along was to subsidize all plans on all exchanges.

Re-enter Professor Gruber. On a separate video in a different speech, he explains what Obamacare intended: 'If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.' The legislative idea was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges by otherwise denying their citizens subsidies."

A "legislative typo"? Krauthammer is obviously referring to Paul Krugman's inane opinion piece on Monday, "Death by Typo," which took the position that the Affordable Care Act intended to provide tax credits to plans bought on federal exchanges. Needless to say, the Krugman op-ed managed to avoid any mention of Gruber. Another example of "the arrogance of an academic liberalism"?

Compare, however, Krugman's attempt to ignore Gruber with Nancy Pelosi's effort to disavow any knowledge of the man or his involvement in enacting Obamacare.

It may take a few months, but Obamacare is destined to be walloped in 2015 by the Supreme Court and is headed for oblivion.

Linda Greenhouse, "Law in the Raw": Slaw Through a Straw

And in the aftermath of Paul Krugman's inane opinion piece on Monday, we are blessed with yet another "objective" analysis from the op-ed page of The New York Times concerning the Affordable Care Act. In a Times opinion piece entitled "Law in the Raw," Linda Greenhouse writes of the US Supreme Court decision to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell:

"These two provisions, part of a 900-page statute that was cobbled together without going through the usual House-Senate conference committee in which it might have been cleaned up, are the source of the confusion. The answer to the problem, as the Fourth Circuit panel found unanimously in the King case, is obvious. It’s a basic principle of administrative law that when a federal statute is ambiguous, courts defer to the agency’s interpretation — here, the I.R.S. regulation that makes the tax credits available without regard to whether the exchange is state or federal."

Okay, but is the Affordable Care Act "ambiguous"? John Steele Gordon's article in Commentary entitled "Paul Krugman at It Again" provides powerful evidence that the statute says exactly what it intended to say:

"[Krugman] writes, 'you can ask the people who drafted the law what they intended, and it wasn’t what the plaintiffs claim.'

OK, let’s do that and ask Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architects of ObamaCare. In 2012, long before this controversy arose, he was asked at a public forum about subsidies being limited to the exchanges set up by the states. He says that limiting the subsidies to state exchanges was entirely on purpose, in order to coerce the states into setting up the exchanges. 'I think what’s important to remember politically about this,' he says, 'is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.'"

Jonathan Gruber? Why is there not a single mention of Gruber in Greenhouse's op-ed? Just this past week we learned of MIT Professor Gruber's take on Obamacare:

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

Obamacare was purposefully written in a "tortured way"? The "stupidity of the American voter" was "really really critical for the thing to pass"? "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage"?

Apparently, Greenhouse thinks none of the above has anything to do with a discussion of the Affordable Care Act's "ambiguity."

Yeah, right.

Dana Milbank, "Why Obamacare risks falling into a ‘death spiral’": Obama's Disappearing Legacy

Following Paul Krugman's inane (I'm being kind) assault upon the American judicial system, Dana Milbank today also addresses the decision of the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell, whose determination could effectively spell the end of Obamacare. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why Obamacare risks falling into a ‘death spiral’," Milbank writes:

"When the Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in March, it delivered the threat of two mortal blows to the signature achievement of the Obama presidency.

First, it raised the possibility that the justices, who narrowly spared the law in 2012, will in June come out with a new ruling that would dismantle the law on different grounds. But even if the justices make no such ruling, the very act of taking up the challenge to the law will itself undermine the law. The justices announced their decision just a week before the open-enrollment period for 2015 begins — and the looming possibility that the high court will strike down the law will probably deter those who are considering signing up for its coverage."

Or stated otherwise, Obamacare will soon be toast.

But now we get to the frightening part. If Obama understands what lies in store for his signature legislation in 2015, what other mischief might he attempt in order to leave behind anything resembling a legacy? I think the answer is clear. With the approach of the November 24 deadline to reach an agreement with Khamenei over Iran's nuclear weapons development program, the Obama administration is working overtime to demonstrate that the president's overtures to this tyrannical regime during the past six years have borne fruit.

As Jackson Diehl noted yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s bet on Iran":

"In essence, the United States faces a choice in the Middle East of trying to defend its interests and restore stability with or against Iran. A policy of marginalizing Tehran — in keeping with that of the past three decades — would mean seeking the defeat of Assad’s army, pressuring Iraq’s government to curb Iran’s proxy Shiite militias and stepping up sanctions until Iran agrees to dismantle — not just temporarily limit — its nuclear infrastructure.

Obama’s bet is that the course of 'direct diplomacy' is more likely to produce an acceptable outcome. His assumption is that there is a formula for an Iranian nuclear program and governments in Syria and Iraq that both Khamenei and U.S. allies can live with. Most likely he is wrong. But the audacity of his policy reflects a president bidding for vindication — and a legacy."

Wager on Iran holding up its side of the bargain involving any agreement purportedly limiting its nuclear weapons development program? I don't think so. Khamenei again called for the annihilation of Israel this past weekend.


Time for America's narcissistic president to get real . . . if that is possible.

Paul Krugman, "Death by Typo": Krugman Versus the United States Judicial System

What happens when an economist engages in legal reasoning? Answer: Nothing good.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Death by Typo," Paul Krugman decides to weigh in regarding the decision of the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell. King v. Burwell, whose determination could bar health care subsidies to Americans acquiring insurance via federal government exchanges, might have a serious impact upon the future of Obamacare. Krugman writes:

"[I]t now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an equally obvious typo.

. . . .

Once upon a time, this lawsuit would have been literally laughed out of court. Instead, however, it has actually been upheld in some lower courts, on straight party-line votes — and the willingness of the Supremes to hear it is a bad omen.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what we’ll find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes."

Unfortunately for Paul, this is not all about a "typo." Rather, this is about a statute categorically and systematically saying what it perhaps did not intend to say. See the excellent Washington Post article entitled "What the district court got wrong (and right) in Halbig v. Sebelius" by Jonathan H. Adler. See also John Steele Gordon's article in Commentary entitled "Paul Krugman at It Again," which provides powerful evidence that the statute says exactly what it intended to say.

To what extent is the US judiciary entitled to correct shoddy Congressional drafting? Let's wait to see the US Supreme Court decision. However, there is nothing extraordinary about courts determining the limits of statutory interpretation.

If there was a mistake written into the law, why can't Congress amend the statute? In this instance, the answer is simple: Obama can no longer find a majority in either house of Congress for this unpopular legislation.

Is this a matter of the willingness of the US judiciary "to pervert the law to serve political masters"? Sorry, Paul, I disagree. The United States is not a banana republic.

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.

Paul Krugman, "Inventing a Failure": Lies, Damned Lies?

Has Obamacare turned the corner? You might not be able to keep your doctor, you might not be able to keep your health care plan, and it might cost you more, but Paul Krugman thinks so.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Inventing a Failure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/opinion/krugman-inventing-a-failure.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Krugman writes:

"Mainstream politicians didn’t always try to advance their agenda through lies, damned lies and — in this case — bogus statistics. And the fact that this has become standard operating procedure for a major party bodes ill for America’s future.

. . . .

The really big policy news of 2014, at least so far, is the spectacular recovery of the Affordable Care Act from its stumbling start, thanks to an extraordinary late surge that took enrollment beyond early projections. The age mix of enrollees has improved; insurance companies are broadly satisfied with the risk pool. Multiple independent surveys confirm that the percentage of Americans without health insurance has already declined substantially, and there’s every reason to believe that over the next two years the act will meet its overall goals, except in states that refuse to expand Medicaid.

. . . .

So Republicans are spreading disinformation about health reform because it works, and because they can — there is no sign that they pay any political price when their accusations are proved false."

"Mainstream politicians didn’t always try to advance their agenda through lies, damned lies"? Peculiar. The Obama administration's attempt to blame the attack on the Benghazi consulate on an Internet video amounted to just this sort of mendaciousness, but I am wandering off target. Is Obamacare the success that Krugman makes it out to be? Are Republicans hoodwinking the electorate?

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The White House’s Obamacare victory lap looking more like a false start" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/white-houses-obamacare-victory-lap-looking-more-like-a-false-start/?tid=pm_politics_pop), Aaron Blake observes (my emphasis in red):

"As we have noted, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows approval of the law and of Obama's implementation of it have dropped after a momentary boost. Americans disapprove of the law overall 48-44 and disapprove of Obama's implementation 57-37.

What's perhaps more telling is that, despite the rare good news of the past few weeks, their perceptions of the law remain basically as-is -- that is, pretty dim. To wit:
•Americans say 50-41 that the implementation of the law has been worse than they expected rather than better.
•They say 44-24 that the health-care system is getting worse rather than getting better as a result of Obamacare.
•They say 29-14 that the quality of care is getting worse rather than better.
•They say 47-8 that their health-care costs are increasing due to the law rather than decreasing.
•They say 58-11 that the overall cost of health care in the United States is increasing rather than decreasing. "

These negative perceptions of Obamacare are all the result of Republican lies? I don't think so, unless Krugman would have us believe that Americans, who elected Obama twice to be their president, are all dunderheads, even when it involves their wallets and purses.

Is the Affordable Care Act affordable? Obviously many Americans don't think so.

What will be the ultimate effect of the Affordable Care Act on America's national debt? Or stated otherwise, is the Affordable Care Act affordable to the nation as a whole? The jury is still out - particularly given a second delay by the Obama administration of the employer mandate in February - but the prognosis is not sanguine, notwithstanding slightly lower deficit estimates (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-healthcare-premiums-idUSBREA3D1KQ20140414).