Maybe there are benefits from pooling risk.? James Devine On Jul 26, 2013 6:03 PM, "Maxim Linchits" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You mean those projections of quality-adjusted premiums dropping by 50-70 > percent in California and New York? Close your browser for a moment and > think about how this is economically possible.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *raghu > *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2013 4:51 PM > *To:* Progressive Economics > *Subject:* Re: [Pen-l] Obamacare Is the Right's Worst Nightmare**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Maxim Linchits <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > My post was in response to Krugman’s set of interrelated claims which > includes: 1) ACA is nightmare for the “right”; 2) The policy will make the > majority of American’s lives “better”; 3) The policy is “redistributive”. > **** > > If you can argue these liberal talking points, you are welcome to do so. > Considering the density of dubious assumptions per claim, it might take you > a while.**** > > ** ** > > I will ignore the silly name-calling about "liberal talking points".**** > > ** ** > > I don't know about "nightmare for the right", but the evidence so far > nicely backs up the part about "making the majority of Americans' lives > better" at least in the sense of insurance premiums going down and some of > the most egregious abuses of the insurance industry eliminated. Are you > seriously disputing any of this?**** > > And yes, I believe the ACA is indeed mildly redistributive in the > progressive direction. Again, are you really disputing this? Can you > explain exactly why Krugman is wrong about this claim (apart from his crime > of being a hated "liberal").**** > > > > > **** > > I feel that you missed my main point: every right-wing policy has > beneficial and even progressive side effects. Care to name one that does > not? However, the fact that ACA will increase access to healthcare does > not change the fact that it redistributes wealth upwards **within** the > relevant markets: insurance, care and pharmaceuticals. Again: buyers are > going to be forced into a seller’s market.**** > > ** ** > > The problem with this theory is it is contradicted by the evidence. > Insurance premiums are *decreasing*. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html > **** > > I have not seen you offer any evidence to counter these.**** > > > > > **** > > Obamacare finally makes it feasible for employers to stop subsidizing > plans. Yes, company health plans are an abomination, but the market put in > place by Obamacare is not? With Obamacare in place, I am sure workers > around the country will be clamoring for employers to put an end to this > paternalism. Who will pick up the tab then? I am just asking.**** > > ** ** > > A public option perhaps?**** > > -raghu. **** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
