Political Roundtable - Part V

[Induveca]

barelyawake, it's true that health care costs must be reduced. The problem is that Obamacare won't do that. It's going to raise costs.

A) If that is the case, that is because of the lack of a public option.
B) That is not the case.

But, Nate, the arguments above mine were that healthcare reform was a frivolous exercise which was unneeded and a waste of focus when what we need to focus on is growth. Indy said healthcare reform was a made-up issue like third world republics use to distract the public on fake issues that don't actually effect the economy. That stance is nonsense. Lowering healthcare costs is one of the, if not the single, greatest things we can do to spur growth.

It's far from nonsense. Healthcare is obviously expensive. The political trick is in the details.

A "system" has been "created" which does nothing to reduce procedural or medicinal costs. But instead it raises costs across the board in an era where extra costs can't be reasonably absorbed by the public.

Influx of high risk customers means increased costs across the board for insurers. Can't wait for insurance companies falsely claiming projected bankruptcies and need for government "bailouts" in year 3 if the program is ever fully implemented.

But it got young and lower income voters to the polls, and they'll never understand how these increased costs pushed a fragile economy even closer to the edge.

Do you really think young entrepreneurs/business owners can afford a 200 dollar monthly hike in their personal insurance costs right now?

It's reckless 3rd world political theater, panning to the poor and liberal art "intellectuals" grand utopian plans which can't be justified economically.

I like the "idea" as originally explained, who wouldn't, I just can't ignore the economic realities.

[Wizardspride]

barelyawake, it's true that health care costs must be reduced. The problem is that Obamacare won't do that. It's going to raise costs.

A) If that is the case, that is because of the lack of a public option.
B) That is not the case.

But, Nate, the arguments above mine were that healthcare reform was a frivolous exercise which was unneeded and a waste of focus when what we need to focus on is growth. Indy said healthcare reform was a made-up issue like third world republics use to distract the public on fake issues that don't actually effect the economy. That stance is nonsense. Lowering healthcare costs is one of the, if not the single, greatest things we can do to spur growth.

It's far from nonsense. Healthcare is obviously expensive. The political trick is in the details.

A "system" has been "created" which does nothing to reduce procedural or medicinal costs. But instead it raises costs across the board in an era where extra costs can't be reasonably absorbed by the public.

Influx of high risk customers means increased costs across the board for insurers. Can't wait for insurance companies falsely claiming projected bankruptcies and need for government "bailouts" in year 3 if the program is ever fully implemented.

But it got young and lower income voters to the polls, and they'll never understand how these increased costs pushed a fragile economy even closer to the edge.

Do you really think young entrepreneurs/business owners can afford a 200 dollar monthly hike in their personal insurance costs right now?

Nevermind.....

[barelyawake]

As I have said earlier in the thread and repeatedly, the government will be forced (by the people) to introduce a public option -- because while the ACA will cause the rise of insurance costs to trend downward, it won't cure the problem. And once that occurs, we will have created (for 90% of the people) a single payer program. Yes, insurance companies will fail. That was always part of the plan.

[Zonkerbl]

ACA does not raise costs across the board, that's flat out false. What has come out is that a certain subgroup of people are paying higher costs.

Now, pay attention everybody.

That subgroup of people who are paying higher costs are the small businesses who create basically all the good, high paying jobs and develop technologies and processes that make everyone better off. So making healthcare costs go up for that group is going to make the whole country worse off.

Lying about health costs going up across the board is unnecessary and undermines your credibility. If you're going to argue about something THAT'S TRUE, that ACA does bad things to the economy, WHY MAKE UP LIES ABOUT IT? The truth isn't convincing enough for you?

Yes, the Dems had to force through a version of ACA that would actually pass. The political compromise version of ACA is CRAP CRAP CRAP. You can't get rid of it, and frankly the ACA now, as crappy as it is, is better than what we had before. It needs to be fixed and it can be if we have an honest conversation about what's actually wrong with it.

[Zonkerbl]

Kind of sad about Virginia governorship going Democratic. That's a sign that the political damage the Tea Party did to the Republicans is going to last at least through an election or two.

I was really hoping that Obama's reelection would force the Republicans to take a hard look at reality and adjust their strategy accordingly. I worked with the Republicans for eight years and there are some good people with good ideas about immigration and so on. Instead the Tea Partiers forced the Republicans to huddle into their bunkers even more deeply, and they're dragging the party that's supposed to represent business interests into the bunker with them.

[W. Unseld]

One of my very liberal friends used to work for Cuccinelli and he said he was razor sharp in terms of legal analysis but would trip over his own feet in terms of what you do and don't do politically. He made a good deal of my R friends uncomfortable and I think that's why he lost. McCauliffe (I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong) is kind of known as a typical get you and your friends rich politician but I think people prefer the predictible crook to the unpredictable idealogue.

I'm hopeful about Northam, the Lt. Gov. elect, he seems smart as a whip and members of each party didn't have much in terms of criticism.

[dckingsfan]

ACA does not raise costs across the board, that's flat out false. What has come out is that a certain subgroup of people are paying higher costs.

Now, pay attention everybody.

That subgroup of people who are paying higher costs are the small businesses who create basically all the good, high paying jobs and develop technologies and processes that make everyone better off. So making healthcare costs go up for that group is going to make the whole country worse off.

Lying about health costs going up across the board is unnecessary and undermines your credibility. If you're going to argue about something THAT'S TRUE, that ACA does bad things to the economy, WHY MAKE UP LIES ABOUT IT? The truth isn't convincing enough for you?

Yes, the Dems had to force through a version of ACA that would actually pass. The political compromise version of ACA is CRAP CRAP CRAP. You can't get rid of it, and frankly the ACA now, as crappy as it is, is better than what we had before. It needs to be fixed and it can be if we have an honest conversation about what's actually wrong with it.

You are absolutely correct... there is an entire group that couldn't get insurance or whose insurance costs were very high that will see some substantial cost reductions. Some actually will end up paying nothing with subsidies.

[Induveca]

ACA does not raise costs across the board, that's flat out false. What has come out is that a certain subgroup of people are paying higher costs.

Now, pay attention everybody.

That subgroup of people who are paying higher costs are the small businesses who create basically all the good, high paying jobs and develop technologies and processes that make everyone better off. So making healthcare costs go up for that group is going to make the whole country worse off.

Lying about health costs going up across the board is unnecessary and undermines your credibility. If you're going to argue about something THAT'S TRUE, that ACA does bad things to the economy, WHY MAKE UP LIES ABOUT IT? The truth isn't convincing enough for you?

Yes, the Dems had to force through a version of ACA that would actually pass. The political compromise version of ACA is CRAP CRAP CRAP. You can't get rid of it, and frankly the ACA now, as crappy as it is, is better than what we had before. It needs to be fixed and it can be if we have an honest conversation about what's actually wrong with it.

Zonk, we're in agreement here but I disagree that costs won't rise across the board. Hear me out if you can, i'm saying this with substantial experience sitting on corporate boards.

Any business must assess risk. This plan increases exposure substantially for not only insurers, but doctors, hospitals....*especially* pharmaceutical companies.

When exposure/risk comes increased costs to the customer. There is no avoiding that reality.

What most won't understand is "increased exposure" due to government regulation is a godsend for executives at large companies Assessing "drastic" risk can very rarely be done without stockholder backlash. It can only be done successfully when chalking it up to new governmental tax/regulations drastically impacting future projections (debateable but this will be the claim). And of course this "necessary" increase will keep the company at previously projected revenues. Is It all true? No, but the boards won't let the opportunity pass.

This mostly applies to large pharma companies, but impacts hospitals abd individual physicians as well.

Personal injury attorneys and class action lawsuit types must already be salivating. Pharma companies are the largest target by far, so rest assured at a bare minimum pharma prices in the US will rise by next year.

This could of course have been avoided, by implementing a fully socialized medical system with complete governmental oversight. But that had never been the plan....the socialist vibe wound have sunk Obama's reelection. Too many EU taxation and decreased doctor/nurse wages which couldn't be disputed.

Instead the two parties compromised (fought like children) to pass a bill that does little but add to the economic woes of the country.

[pineappleheadindc]

ACA does not raise costs across the board, that's flat out false. What has come out is that a certain subgroup of people are paying higher costs.

Now, pay attention everybody.

That subgroup of people who are paying higher costs are the small businesses who create basically all the good, high paying jobs and develop technologies and processes that make everyone better off. So making healthcare costs go up for that group is going to make the whole country worse off.

Lying about health costs going up across the board is unnecessary and undermines your credibility. If you're going to argue about something THAT'S TRUE, that ACA does bad things to the economy, WHY MAKE UP LIES ABOUT IT? The truth isn't convincing enough for you?

Yes, the Dems had to force through a version of ACA that would actually pass. The political compromise version of ACA is CRAP CRAP CRAP. You can't get rid of it, and frankly the ACA now, as crappy as it is, is better than what we had before. It needs to be fixed and it can be if we have an honest conversation about what's actually wrong with it.

Good post, Zonk.

IMO, the ACA looks like something thrown together by a committee (and it is). The website's back end integration isn't even close to its biggest problem.

Also, your point about using false talking points is a really good one. But I'd cut folks some slack. Public information and talking points on the ACA seem to be originating from either:

1. A lazy and intellectually un-curious press (e.g., all the ACA "horror" stories which, when the consumers are given their factual options turn out not to be horror stories. But the reporters don't understand the ACA as well as the uninformed consumer they quote).

2. Sources with political position, whose intent isn't to inform but to do political battle.

Given that, it's pretty understandable that many (including me) are not totally 100% factually sure of the ACA's impact in sense of granularity. As an economist and someone who's up on this, you - Zonk - could help a lot by posting more on the topic and in more specificity. Yeah, I just committed your time and effort while sitting here at a desk and eating a jelly doughnut. Cool trick, huh?

[dckingsfan]

barelyawake, it's true that health care costs must be reduced. The problem is that Obamacare won't do that. It's going to raise costs.

A) If that is the case, that is because of the lack of a public option.
B) That is not the case.

But, Nate, the arguments above mine were that healthcare reform was a frivolous exercise which was unneeded and a waste of focus when what we need to focus on is growth. Indy said healthcare reform was a made-up issue like third world republics use to distract the public on fake issues that don't actually effect the economy. That stance is nonsense. Lowering healthcare costs is one of the, if not the single, greatest things we can do to spur growth.

You are right, healthcare reform would in fact help the growth of the economy, but the ACA didn't reform the underlying problems. In fact, it is going to subtract from economic growth. It was the wrong focus at the wrong time. Add to that a poor stimulus bill and we dug ourselves a hole.

[W. Unseld]

1. A lazy and intellectually un-curious press (e.g., all the ACA "horror" stories which, when the consumers are given their factual options turn out not to be horror stories. But the reporters don't understand the ACA as well as the uninformed consumer they quote).

Given that, it's pretty understandable that many (including me) are not totally 100% factually sure of the ACA's impact in sense of granularity.

I don't know about #1 Pine, that kind of makes it sound like people weren't promised that "if they liked their plan (or doctor) they could keep it" or that any serious coverage was given to the fact that rates would rise by a pretty decent amount for some people in part due to coverage they don't need (maternity coverage for 60 year old married couple). Admittedly the whole thing reminds me of the Onion article where man who knows 8% of the ACA furiously debates man who knows 5% of the ACA.

[noworriesinmd]

Random thought:

After all the arguments for/against ACA are any of us really going to convince someone that believes that ACA sucks or that it is the best thing since sliced bread that your opinion is right.

We can use the same energy to figure out more pressing problems. After three years of arguing, we still are at that moment when the President went against Cantor talking about healthcare.

[noworriesinmd]

Kind of sad about Virginia governorship going Democratic. That's a sign that the political damage the Tea Party did to the Republicans is going to last at least through an election or two.

I was really hoping that Obama's reelection would force the Republicans to take a hard look at reality and adjust their strategy accordingly. I worked with the Republicans for eight years and there are some good people with good ideas about immigration and so on. Instead the Tea Partiers forced the Republicans to huddle into their bunkers even more deeply, and they're dragging the party that's supposed to represent business interests into the bunker with them.

Not true.
* There was a libertarian candidate that took 6% of the vote vs the 2% loss of a horrible candidate.
* The Governor-elect outspent his opponent by 2-3x's and still only won by a narrow margin.
* The R Lt-Gov, was just nuts.
* The Gov't shutdown effected a lot of people in No VA, who overwhelmingly voted for the D.


Demographics are against R's, but I don't know if you can point to VA as an endorsement of Obama's policies.

If anything, it screams that is country is decided 50/50.

Plus, ideas matter.
"We hate Obamacare" is not effective vs. We would replace Obamacare by doing...x

[Zonkerbl]

Kind of sad about Virginia governorship going Democratic. That's a sign that the political damage the Tea Party did to the Republicans is going to last at least through an election or two.

I was really hoping that Obama's reelection would force the Republicans to take a hard look at reality and adjust their strategy accordingly. I worked with the Republicans for eight years and there are some good people with good ideas about immigration and so on. Instead the Tea Partiers forced the Republicans to huddle into their bunkers even more deeply, and they're dragging the party that's supposed to represent business interests into the bunker with them.

Not true.
* There was a libertarian candidate that took 6% of the vote vs the 2% loss of a horrible candidate.
* The Governor-elect outspent his opponent by 2-3x's and still only won by a narrow margin.
* The R Lt-Gov, was just nuts.
* The Gov't shutdown effected a lot of people in No VA, who overwhelmingly voted for the D.


Demographics are against R's, but I don't know if you can point to VA as an endorsement of Obama's policies.

If anything, it screams that is country is decided 50/50.

Plus, ideas matter.
"We hate Obamacare" is not effective vs. We would replace Obamacare by doing...x

I was more looking at the 2009 results vs. yesterday's results. In 2009 McDonnell got 59% of the vote. In 2013 Cuccinelli + Sarvis got 52%. That's a crappy result for the Republicans no matter how you spin it.

[dobrojim]

they got 52% against a crappy candidate who few people had any
real enthusiasm about. Folks on both sides were holding their respective
noses when voting yesterday.

[noworriesinmd]

I was more looking at the 2009 results vs. yesterday's results. In 2009 McDonnell got 59% of the vote. In 2013 Cuccinelli + Sarvis got 52%. That's a crappy result for the Republicans no matter how you spin it.

I'm not defending the Republican, but this is how politics works.

Suppose you got to a party and I arrive before you. I tell all the women you are a sex offender (may/may not be true). When you get to the party, you are at a huge disadvantage and you will spend most of your time fighting the rumor vs showing your true personality. Most likely I'll have a better change of getting a date vs you.

This is what McAuliffe did. He was able to define Cuccinelli to the voters before Cuccinelli was able to introduce himself to voters because McAuliffe had WAY more money. I'm not saying McAuliffe lied about every Cuccinelli policy, but I saw multiple commercials on both sides that were outright distortions of the facts.

Also, the sitting Governor brought Cuccinelli down because of Star Scientific and the fact that Cuccinelli would not give back campaign funds.

I think both candidates were bad, but I would not read a lot into this election in VA, just like I would not read into Christie's victory in NJ (Corey Booker not on ballot). I'd read more into the 2016 election. Demographics are not a social conservatives friend, but it'll be interesting to see how ACA rolls out in 2 years.

[dobrojim]

I don't agree that VA voters needed McAuf to define Cooch for them.
He's been far more in the news than the vast majority of AGs in the
recent past. VA voters had a pretty good idea who he was even
before all the negative ads. What's a little surprising to me was
that McAuf had a money advantage or a money advantage of the
proportions that he had.

I think the impression that VA voters had about McAuf at the start
was simply that he was a carpetbagger. That's less a negative than
a pure ideologue pushing an ideology that recently took a big hit
in the opinion of many voters.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the campaigning was just as underhanded and icky in 2009 as it was in 2013.

What you're saying may be true. What's also possible is that the Republicans lost approximately 7 points of popularity in Virginia between 2009 and 2013.

It's concerning.

[noworriesinmd]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the campaigning was just as underhanded and icky in 2009 as it was in 2013.

What you're saying may be true. What's also possible is that the Republicans lost approximately 7 points of popularity in Virginia between 2009 and 2013.

It's concerning.

Money always wins in low turnout off year elections. You need grassroots get out the vote and door to door get out the vote efforts. That takes money. Plus the DMV is an expensive area to advertise in.
Seems to me that Cuccinelli could have won w/o the Libertarian on the ballot (not saying he would have won - won't read into this). My point is not to read into this.

Presidential
Obama 1,971,820
Romney 1,822,522

2009
Bob McDonnell 1,163,651
Creigh Deeds 818,950

2013
Terry McAuliffe 1,065,205
Ken Cuccinelli II 1,010,335
Robert Sarvis 145,560


Election Year Total Votes
2013 2,160, 068
2009 2,000,819
2001 1,886,721
1997 1,736,314
1993 1,793,916
1989 1,789,078
1985 1,343,243
1981 1,420,611
1977 1,250,940
1973 1,035,495

[dobrojim]

but the question then becomes, why wasn't cooch able to raise enough
money to be competitive on the money side of things? There's plenty
of conservative money to be had...Cooch didn't get much of it. Why?