Joe Stanley
-
Ugh! Mitt Romney already going squishy on Obamacare
Dear Paul Ryan,
Would you please explain to Mitt Romney why he’s wrong about mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions. Please insist to him that he stay strong for a full repeal of Obamacare.
growing weary,
The American People
from TPM:
itt Romney said Sunday that he likes parts of ‘Obamacare’ and will keep key provisions involving pre-existing conditions and young people.
“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”
The remarks could have huge implications as they signal a marked shift from Romney’s strong, unequivocal support for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which he has consistently held since the Republican primaries.
Politically, the pivot risks drawing the ire of conservatives, who have been adamant that Republicans repeal the law in its entirety if elected. It’s a major gamble that could reflect Romney’s need to win over more independent voters, who support those provisions.
From a policy standpoint, however, the coverage guarantee for pre-existing conditions is economically untenable without other provisions of ‘Obamacare’ — most notably the individual mandate that requires Americans purchase insurance, which experts say is necessary to broaden the risk pool and prevent an upward spiral in costs.
The author here is right. The individual mandate is the only mechanism that makes guaranteed coverage work. The two are inseparable. You cannot mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions without also mandating that all Americans buy health insurance. To do so would with 100% certainly bankrupt the American healthcare system.
And why in the world would he continue the mandated freeloading of 26 year olds on their parents health insurance?
These things have already raised the cost of healthcare premiums. Premiums will not go down until they are repealed.
Hopefully Romney will come out and clarify his remarks by saying that health insurance companies are allowed to do so if they can negotiate it but not that they’re mandated.
Fellow conservatives, I would encourage you to contact Mitt Romney and make your voice heard.
I hate to break it to everyone against Obamacare, but these provisions are here to stay. Every year they stay in place public support for them grows, and Republicans are already having to adjust their positions as a reflection of this. The only possible stumbling year will be 2014, but after that the window of opportunity even for staggered dismantlement of the system closes. This was our Social Security fight, for better or worse (I say better), and it will become equally as entrenched.
-
Weaker Than Expected Job Growth In August -
“One quarter of all American real estate today owes more money on the mortgage than it actually is worth. That means one quarter of homeowners—almost ten million people—could walk away from their property and come out ahead on their balance sheet. Donald Trump would walk away. Certainly, Goldman Sachs walks away from bad investments. But individuals are told that their debt should be paid, that only the debts of the rich don’t have to be paid. Only the debts of the 99% to the rich have to be paid. And there’s a shift in the understanding of how the economy works.” —Michael Hudson (via theamericanbear)
Strategic defaults are a freerider solution, one that a system has to bear rather than benefit from. These freerider solutions often require a pretty in-depth understanding of the nuances of the system that they ride on, which is a marginal cost. The elite can afford this cost more easily, and often benefit from its use more than the rest of the system’s actors.
That has been the case for quite a while, it’s just that now the rest of us are more aware of it.(via jasencomstock)
-
Visualizing Data: An Economist's Guide to Presenting Data The title really tells you everything you need to know. There are right and wrong ways to present complex information to an intelligent-yet-ignorant audience. This helps steer you toward the right path.
(h/t Justin Wolfers) -
The health reform law’s biggest threat: 30,000 too few doctors If the law succeeds in extending health insurance to 32 million more Americans, there won’t be enough doctors to see them. In fact, the anticipated shortfall of primary-care providers, by 2015, is staggering: 29,800.
Either extend more visas and lower the regulations requiring foreign doctors to often re-do residencies in the U.S., or begin to curb federal aid for college based on market demands (ideally also having colleges charge different for the vastly different costs of each major+degree).
-
![theatlantic:
Are America’s Prison Towns Doomed?
For decades, the trade-off of becoming known as a “prison town” and being associated with incarceration has been a worthwhile trade-off for municipalities in financial straits. And states in need of a place to put their growing inmate populations during the height of the War on Drugs were willing to pay good money for it.
This is where publicly-traded, private prison companies such as Corrections Corporation of America and GEO, formerly known as Wackenhut, — what Eric Schlosser dubbed the “prison industrial complex” — stepped in. They offered cheaper and more efficient prison management than state-run systems because they could use non-union employees at lower wages with less training.
But much like the real estate market crash of the last ten years, the belief that the incarceration market was recession-proof and could only rise is being proved wrong. Declining crime rates are leaving more prisons empty. There isn’t enough crime to keep the prison industry afloat as it currently stands.
To save money, more states are moving their prisoners back to state-run facilities when space is available. Without prisoners, the private companies managing the facilities are leaving. And the small towns who bet on an ever-growing incarceration rate are left further in debt with few sources of capital. Read more.
[Image: Reuters]
A compelling, difficult story from The Atlantic Cities about incarceration and struggling American towns. Here’s a question for y’all: Can we reconcile our satisfaction about falling crime rates with concern for those losing their livelihoods?](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz4vimbwEd1qcokc4o1_1280.jpg)
Are America’s Prison Towns Doomed?
For decades, the trade-off of becoming known as a “prison town” and being associated with incarceration has been a worthwhile trade-off for municipalities in financial straits. And states in need of a place to put their growing inmate populations during the height of the War on Drugs were willing to pay good money for it.
This is where publicly-traded, private prison companies such as Corrections Corporation of America and GEO, formerly known as Wackenhut, — what Eric Schlosser dubbed the “prison industrial complex” — stepped in. They offered cheaper and more efficient prison management than state-run systems because they could use non-union employees at lower wages with less training.
But much like the real estate market crash of the last ten years, the belief that the incarceration market was recession-proof and could only rise is being proved wrong. Declining crime rates are leaving more prisons empty. There isn’t enough crime to keep the prison industry afloat as it currently stands.
To save money, more states are moving their prisoners back to state-run facilities when space is available. Without prisoners, the private companies managing the facilities are leaving. And the small towns who bet on an ever-growing incarceration rate are left further in debt with few sources of capital. Read more.
[Image: Reuters]
A compelling, difficult story from The Atlantic Cities about incarceration and struggling American towns. Here’s a question for y’all: Can we reconcile our satisfaction about falling crime rates with concern for those losing their livelihoods?
