Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
America's Middle Class is no Longer the World's Richest
To cman Comment: "A realistic middle ground exists between being a Pollyanna and a Doomer."
Years ago I remember watching a documentary called "Common Ground" which presented the issues surrounding Logging in the Pacific Northwest. The reporting stuck to facts and attempted to present the many sides of the issue to the viewer. It was offered up by my college Jounalism professor as an example of what good reporting looked like.
I do believe that broadcast corporations have lowered professional journalism standards and often as part of a political agenda. "TV Noose" acts more like a hangman's rope, wrapping around its audience through fear. Tightening us into inaction or worse irrational desperate action.
It seems a couple of people didn't understand my post and read into it points not stated. I don't do that. I do not project upon a person's post. Simply stated, nations rise and decline like people. There is no world power that didn't follow this. The ACA is just another step along the road. I think I will die before the worst is seen. Simple enough?
If someone were to disagree with me on the above it would need to be that the USA will avoid the fate of previous world powers.
As to the ACA hurting more people and the media not being able to crunch the numbers:
- Worker hours cut to below 30 so ins not provided - Companies incurring higher ins costs - pasted along to consumers - Companies incurring higher ins costs - making exports less competitive & hurting employees - Companies eliminating health ins for employees & paying the fine - Employees dropped from company health ins must purchase it with after tax dollars - Increased premiums due to the requirements of the law - People not getting subsides because not all states expanded Medicare - High deductibles - when ins needed 100% of the deductible must be paid first before the ins kicks in (6,300 & 4,000 - check that for me) - previously there was a split e.g. 70 ins/ 30 person until you reached the max and ins pays 100%. So if you had a 10K bill you now pay 6,300. Under the old plan you would pay 3,000. - The young pay for the old at a time when wages are stagnating, benefits reduced (compared with the past) and high unemployment. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/28/how-much-does-obamacare-rip-off-generation-x-we-ran-the-numbers-here-are-the-results/
I'm sure there are others. This analysis is too much for the media. I think many who are proponents of the the ACA do so because it make them feel good because it positions themselves as loving and caring people. Those that offer a differing opinion are uncaring Luddites. I care for all the people, even those without a voice, yet are being harmed.
I think a less harmful law could have been written.
But here is my main point the ACA is just another step along the road and if you were to disagree with me on the above it would need to be that the USA will somehow avoid the fate of previous world powers.
As to the ACA hurting more people and the media not being able to crunch the numbers:
- Worker hours cut to below 30 so ins not provided - Companies incurring higher ins costs - pasted along to consumers - Companies incurring higher ins costs - making exports less competitive & hurting employees - Companies eliminating health ins for employees & paying the fine - Employees dropped from company health ins must purchase it with after tax dollars - Increased premiums due to the requirements of the law - People not getting subsides because not all states expanded Medicare - High deductibles - when ins needed 100% of the deductible must be paid first before the ins kicks in (6,300 & 4,000 - check that for me) - previously there was a split e.g. 70 ins/ 30 person until you reached the max and ins pays 100%. So if you had a 10K bill you now pay 6,300. Under the old plan you would pay 3,000. - The young pay for the old at a time when wages are stagnating, benefits reduced (compared with the past) and high unemployment
Dex,
Way to complicated for me!
If you don't mind, I would like to dumb down the ACA as I understand it.
In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
Next we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured,
and then re-insured can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured for free.
I'm sure there are others. This analysis is too much for the media. I think many who are proponents of the the ACA do so because it make them feel good because it positions themselves as loving and caring people. Those that offer a differing opinion are uncaring Luddites. I care for all the people, even those without a voice, yet are being harmed.
I think a less harmful law could have been written.
Here's another one...9.3 million people now have health insurance who previously did not. That number would be higher by several million, except that a few Governors chose to not have their states participate.
If you believe a less harmful law could have been written, then why wasn't one?
@Dex, My concern with your analysis, is that it does not look at the money saved. By no longer having as many people declaring bankruptcies due to medical costs. Also, costs of those unable to pay but still being treated were passed on to other patients or government program costs before anyway, this just formalizes that in a way that is subject to additional market forces (despite all the regulation). Lastly there are numerous benefits from a healthier workforce in the short and long run. These benefits are also all hard to calculate, but are being left out and should be included.
What's the point of your earlier posts Dex? (particularly the 3 successive ones which I responded to) I mean, could you kindly explain how ACA is logically connected to the rise and fall of world powers? Any kid beyond third grade knows that nations rise and fall. Obviously I've missed something more important in your analysis. Maybe you could help?
How do the rise and fall of nations, health care and William Shakespeare connect? Do you think reversing Obama Care would end the nation's decline or somehow satisfy Shakespeare (if he were alive)? Thanks.
Here's a list of 56 ancient civilizations which eventually fell. Kindly point out the ones whose fate was linked to policies remotely similar to Obama Care. (Perhaps you could mention a half-dozen or so from your own reading if these aren't suitable.)
What's the point of your earlier posts Dax? (particularly the 3 successive ones which I responded to) I mean, could you kindly explain how ACA is logically connected to the rise and fall of world powers? Any kid beyond third grade knows that nations rise and fall. But, obviously I've missed something more important in your analysis. Maybe you could help?
How do the rise and fall of nations, health care and William Shakespeare connect? And do you think reversing Obama Care would end the decline of our nation or somehow satisfy Shakespeare (if he were alive)? Thanks.
Here's a list of 56 ancient civilizations which fell. Kindly point out the ones whose fate was linked to policies remotely similar to Obama Care.
@Dex, My concern with your analysis, is that it does not look at the money saved. By no longer having as many people declaring bankruptcies due to medical costs. Also, costs of those unable to pay but still being treated were passed on to other patients or government program costs before anyway, this just formalizes that in a way that is subject to additional market forces (despite all the regulation). Lastly there are numerous benefits from a healthier workforce in the short and long run. These benefits are also all hard to calculate, but are being left out and should be included.
The ACA probably will not change that much. People can not have ins and pay the tax, get ill, go to the hospital and then go bankrupt.
Here's one question that would be interesting to know. Let's say a person has ACA ins with a $6,300 deductible. They don't have the money to pay the deductible. Would that force them into bankruptcy?
Also, assigning bankruptcy solely to health costs might not be telling the whole story.
"It’s possible that at least some of those who cited medical reasons had debt from other causes, a history of not paying their bills or other complicating issues that led to bankruptcy filing – not just health care. "
"Here's one question that would be interesting to know. Let's say a person has ACA ins with a $6,300 deductible. They don't have the money to pay the deductible. Would that force them into bankruptcy?"
Dunno. However, the folks here at MFO might be able to help someone amass a $6,300 bankroll to have for just such an emergency. Much harder, I think, to acquire the $324,000 needed for the typical open heart surgery should that be necessary.
"It seems a couple of people didn't understand my post and read into it points not stated. I don't do that. I do not project upon a person's post. Simply stated, nations rise and decline like people. There is no world power that didn't follow this. The ACA is just another step along the road. I think I will die before the worst is seen. Simple enough?"
The ACA probably will not change that much. People can not have ins and pay the tax, get ill, go to the hospital and then go bankrupt...
Also, assigning bankruptcy solely to health costs might not be telling the whole story...
Valid and good points. But reading through the links it's clear that a large problem here is exactly the question of uncertainty due to measurement. This goes back to our original point which is that the media does a poor job of exploring the actual numbers with any rigor or nuance (for a variety of reasons).
One of my major points was that not all the estimated or overlooked numbers are negative and it's just as dangerous to emphasize the negative unmeasured quantities as the positive.
The other point I'd emphasize is that the law is designed to minimize the probability of the scenario you mention.
One of my major points was that not all the estimated or overlooked numbers are negative and it's just as dangerous to emphasize the negative unmeasured quantities as the positive.
The other point I'd emphasize is that the law is designed to minimize the probability of the scenario you mention.
I don't think the ACA is all negative. The question is measuring the negatives and positives to come to a net effect. No one is even attempting it. And I doubt anyone ever will.
As I mentioned above. I think the negatives outweigh the positives, yet I can not quantify it.
As to the media - I've worked in 2 major news organizations. There are no specialized research departments doing basic research on subjects. There are no requirements or continuing education requirements to work in the media. It was said that in news - the assembly line workers run the business. They are average Joes and Janes turning the wrenches to get product on the air. They do not have any more insight into ACA then we do. They read the same info as we do and try to figure it out. In addition, they know what stories their boss wants and are not going to get into a conflict with him - they want to keep their jobs. Schools are turning out a lot of students that would like their job.
"In 1976, Glubb, the British historian and soldier, published "The Fate of Nations," his own analysis of the decline syndrome. He gave a slightly longer lifespan – 250 years – but laid out a life cycle similar to the one portrayed by Tytler, ending with an age of decadence brought on by “selfishness, love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty,” and marked by “defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, and the weakening of religion.” It sounds all too familiar. Indeed both characterizations bear remarkable resemblance to the trajectory of American history. And, if the window for great nations to commit moral and fiscal suicide is about 200 to 250 years, America at age 235 is right in the kill zone."
Ferguson is not at all to be trusted when advancing his various negative/rightwing agendas, extremely odd for so notionally distinguished an intellectual. Just one example; there are many others (involving Krugman, e.g.):
Krugman is not at all to be trusted when advancing his various negative/leftwing agendas, extremely odd for so notionally distinguished an intellectual. Just one example; there are many others (involving Ferguson, e.g.):
Two can play this game but it usually ends in a stalemate.
Yes clever. As for this thread, I think a lot of it depends on whose ox is being gored. I confess to being more on the liberal Krugman side, but think there's a lot of bias in the media on both the left and right.
Some facts are pretty inescapable:
The population is aging. Medical costs are skyrocketing. The country has a large and growing debt - probably unsustainable. The disparity in wealth among the population is immense and growing larger. Money pervades our politics. A growing number of our fellow citizens feel disenfranchised and discouraged about the future. Technological advances, for some reason, have not raised the standard of living for the very poorest among us. It's near impossible to find serious, objective reporting on these issues in our popular media.
Most of your points are so, but wrt your third, you should know that all that matters is debt as a percentage of GDP. It's not like a household; we owe the money chiefly to ourselves, and will run out of it when the NFL runs out of points. As for your last point, I have no trouble finding serious and objective (meaning evidence-based) reporting on almost all issues. Give an example and I will try to provide links.
Your first point: I tend to agree with you (and Krugman). However, I'm not as willing to dismiss the views of the right on that point as you are - and was trying to present the list in a manner most/all would agree to.
Your second point: Note "... in our popular media." Yes - I too find serious reporting. A lot on C-Span. Some from both the NYT and WSJ - though you need to be careful. Al Hunt (Bloomberg) does, I think, a fair job reporting and analyzing. And Charlie Rose (several networks) does a commendable job interviewing.
My concern is that by-and-large our population is not getting enough of this. I hold CNN, Fox, and MSNBC up to special scorn. They are ratings driven - to be generous in my appraisal; and possibly being influenced by special interests to be less generous.
Agree completely. Was not much thinking of TV; sorry. I will seek out Hunt, thanks. I don't dismiss conservative views automatically; am always looking for smart and evidence-based arguments. I find Rose often an interrupting / talking-over dumbass but his guests worth listening to usually. Bloomberg and Economist in general sometimes have very good content. Thanks for Hunt tip.
Reply to @ Davidmoran: Hunt's not on much. Anchors news desk weekends and maybe evenings. Has a few other reporters he'll interview from time to time. But he is a veteran DC reporter with a sharp mind and not afraid to voice strong opinions when warranted. Incidentally, he's the husband of Judy woodruff, currently of PBS. I think she's excellent, but overall quality and objectivity have suffered at PBS.
If you have print suggestions pass them along. Can get most anything foreign or domestic on Kindle. Read NYT & SF Chronicle most days. Also subscribe to IBD despite its extreme right tilt because the financial news is decent at a reasonable price. And, of course, regular news and business updates from Reuters.
I imagine I know nothing you don't in this area. I read additionally online WSJ despite its tilt, Marketwatch, NY mag, Salon, Slate, Atlantic, RollingStone, New Republic, WashPost, FinancialTimes, NYTimes, LATimes, many others.... New Yorker in print. Used to read IBD and now shall return to it, thanks. Always looking for solid nonliberal sources, smart and humane, not always easy to find. Interesting about Hunt and Woodruff. (Used to be a working news editor.)
Yikes: Wish I had time to read all of that. But will give Slate, Salon & Atlantic a look.
At first IBD turned me off (and I refused to subscribe). But ... it's fascinating to see just how far out that side's agenda can veer when carried to the logical (illogical?) extreme. And, I'll admit, some of the non-politicized feature articles are excellent.
Nothing against the WSJ. Fine paper. Just too pricy for us.
I try to mooch all of these free or at least amap, and run enough incog browsers to make it work a little bit; also, being forcibly retired, I have more time now to read (also am a working editor) than I used to. Yeah, IBD is what it is, but some smart stuff, agree.
Comments
"A realistic middle ground exists between being a Pollyanna and a Doomer."
Years ago I remember watching a documentary called "Common Ground" which presented the issues surrounding Logging in the Pacific Northwest. The reporting stuck to facts and attempted to present the many sides of the issue to the viewer. It was offered up by my college Jounalism professor as an example of what good reporting looked like.
I do believe that broadcast corporations have lowered professional journalism standards and often as part of a political agenda. "TV Noose" acts more like a hangman's rope, wrapping around its audience through fear. Tightening us into inaction or worse irrational desperate action.
Simply stated, nations rise and decline like people.
There is no world power that didn't follow this.
The ACA is just another step along the road.
I think I will die before the worst is seen.
Simple enough?
If someone were to disagree with me on the above it would need to be that the USA will avoid the fate of previous world powers.
http://www.nairaland.com/1494266/fate-empires-sir-john-glubb
https://d1e0u2actw4eb3.cloudfront.net/edu/src/glubb.pdf
As to the ACA hurting more people and the media not being able to crunch the numbers:
- Worker hours cut to below 30 so ins not provided
- Companies incurring higher ins costs - pasted along to consumers
- Companies incurring higher ins costs - making exports less competitive & hurting employees
- Companies eliminating health ins for employees & paying the fine
- Employees dropped from company health ins must purchase it with after tax dollars
- Increased premiums due to the requirements of the law
- People not getting subsides because not all states expanded Medicare
- High deductibles - when ins needed 100% of the deductible must be paid first before the ins kicks in (6,300 & 4,000 - check that for me) - previously there was a split e.g. 70 ins/ 30 person until you reached the max and ins pays 100%. So if you had a 10K bill you now pay 6,300. Under the old plan you would pay 3,000.
- The young pay for the old at a time when wages are stagnating, benefits reduced (compared with the past) and high unemployment.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/28/how-much-does-obamacare-rip-off-generation-x-we-ran-the-numbers-here-are-the-results/
I'm sure there are others. This analysis is too much for the media. I think many who are proponents of the the ACA do so because it make them feel good because it positions themselves as loving and caring people. Those that offer a differing opinion are uncaring Luddites. I care for all the people, even those without a voice, yet are being harmed.
I think a less harmful law could have been written.
But here is my main point the ACA is just another step along the road and if you were to disagree with me on the above it would need to be that the USA will somehow avoid the fate of previous world powers.
Dex,
Way to complicated for me!
If you don't mind, I would like to dumb down the ACA as I understand it.
In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
Next we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured,
and then re-insured can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured for free.
Got it?
If you believe a less harmful law could have been written, then why wasn't one?
I mean, could you kindly explain how ACA is logically connected to the rise and fall of world powers? Any kid beyond third grade knows that nations rise and fall. Obviously I've missed something more important in your analysis. Maybe you could help?
How do the rise and fall of nations, health care and William Shakespeare connect? Do you think reversing Obama Care would end the nation's decline or somehow satisfy Shakespeare (if he were alive)? Thanks.
Here's a list of 56 ancient civilizations which eventually fell. Kindly point out the ones whose fate was linked to policies remotely similar to Obama Care. (Perhaps you could mention a half-dozen or so from your own reading if these aren't suitable.)
http://larryfreeman.hubpages.com/hub/How-long-do-empires-last
Thanks again.
Here's one question that would be interesting to know. Let's say a person has ACA ins with a $6,300 deductible. They don't have the money to pay the deductible. Would that force them into bankruptcy?
Also, assigning bankruptcy solely to health costs might not be telling the whole story.
"It’s possible that at least some of those who cited medical reasons had debt from other causes, a history of not paying their bills or other complicating issues that led to bankruptcy filing – not just health care. "
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/health-care-bill-bankruptcies/
Dunno. However, the folks here at MFO might be able to help someone amass a $6,300 bankroll to have for just such an emergency. Much harder, I think, to acquire the $324,000 needed for the typical open heart surgery should that be necessary.
http://www.healthcarebusinesstech.com/the-10-most-expensive-medical-procedures/
Simply stated, nations rise and decline like people.
There is no world power that didn't follow this.
The ACA is just another step along the road.
I think I will die before the worst is seen.
Simple enough?"
See the post above.
One of my major points was that not all the estimated or overlooked numbers are negative and it's just as dangerous to emphasize the negative unmeasured quantities as the positive.
The other point I'd emphasize is that the law is designed to minimize the probability of the scenario you mention.
As I mentioned above. I think the negatives outweigh the positives, yet I can not quantify it.
As to the media - I've worked in 2 major news organizations. There are no specialized research departments doing basic research on subjects. There are no requirements or continuing education requirements to work in the media. It was said that in news - the assembly line workers run the business. They are average Joes and Janes turning the wrenches to get product on the air. They do not have any more insight into ACA then we do. They read the same info as we do and try to figure it out. In addition, they know what stories their boss wants and are not going to get into a conflict with him - they want to keep their jobs. Schools are turning out a lot of students that would like their job.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/01/america-is-not-titantic/
"In 1976, Glubb, the British historian and soldier, published "The Fate of Nations," his own analysis of the decline syndrome. He gave a slightly longer lifespan – 250 years – but laid out a life cycle similar to the one portrayed by Tytler, ending with an age of decadence brought on by “selfishness, love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty,” and marked by “defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state, and the weakening of religion.” It sounds all too familiar. Indeed both characterizations bear remarkable resemblance to the trajectory of American history. And, if the window for great nations to commit moral and fiscal suicide is about 200 to 250 years, America at age 235 is right in the kill zone."
How about this - I don't know if FOX reported on it - Niall Ferguson.
Says something similar.
http://www.iie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=152
Regards
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/a-full-fact-check-of-niall-fergusons-very-bad-argument-against-obama/261306/
Two can play this game but it usually ends in a stalemate.
Some facts are pretty inescapable:
The population is aging.
Medical costs are skyrocketing.
The country has a large and growing debt - probably unsustainable.
The disparity in wealth among the population is immense and growing larger.
Money pervades our politics.
A growing number of our fellow citizens feel disenfranchised and discouraged about the future.
Technological advances, for some reason, have not raised the standard of living for the very poorest among us.
It's near impossible to find serious, objective reporting on these issues in our popular media.
Your first point: I tend to agree with you (and Krugman). However, I'm not as willing to dismiss the views of the right on that point as you are - and was trying to present the list in a manner most/all would agree to.
Your second point: Note "... in our popular media."
Yes - I too find serious reporting. A lot on C-Span. Some from both the NYT and WSJ - though you need to be careful. Al Hunt (Bloomberg) does, I think, a fair job reporting and analyzing. And Charlie Rose (several networks) does a commendable job interviewing.
My concern is that by-and-large our population is not getting enough of this. I hold CNN, Fox, and MSNBC up to special scorn. They are ratings driven - to be generous in my appraisal; and possibly being influenced by special interests to be less generous.
Agree completely. Was not much thinking of TV; sorry. I will seek out Hunt, thanks. I don't dismiss conservative views automatically; am always looking for smart and evidence-based arguments. I find Rose often an interrupting / talking-over dumbass but his guests worth listening to usually. Bloomberg and Economist in general sometimes have very good content. Thanks for Hunt tip.
If you have print suggestions pass them along. Can get most anything foreign or domestic on Kindle. Read NYT & SF Chronicle most days. Also subscribe to IBD despite its extreme right tilt because the financial news is decent at a reasonable price. And, of course, regular news and business updates from Reuters.
Regards
At first IBD turned me off (and I refused to subscribe). But ... it's fascinating to see just how far out that side's agenda can veer when carried to the logical (illogical?) extreme. And, I'll admit, some of the non-politicized feature articles are excellent.
Nothing against the WSJ. Fine paper. Just too pricy for us.