Skip to content

Month: March 2017

A lotta egg on a lotta faces …

A lotta egg on a lotta faces …

by digby

.

No, Obamacare is not in a death spiral

No, Obamacare is not in a death spiral

by digby

If you’ve heard it once you’ve heard it a thousand times: Obamacare is falling apart and on the verge of catastrophic failure.

No it isn’t:

Republican leaders say they will table health care talks following the defeat of the House GOP to replace Obamacare. As House Speaker Paul Ryan put it, “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

But some conservatives say that President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation can’t last much longer, regardless of whether Congress finds a legislative compromise.

“It is in a death spiral,” conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt said March 26 on Meet the Press. “The New York Times yesterday pointed out that — the president of Aetna — that you will lose coverage in many places in America for everyone, and that to me is a death spiral for those people.”

The idea that Obamacare is in a “death spiral” — a specific term used in the health insurance industry — is a claim that we’ve heard before. Experts say Hewitt is incorrect.

We reached out to Hewitt through his radio program but did not hear back.

Still no ‘death spiral’

“Death spiral” is a health industry term built around three components:

Shrinking enrollment;

Healthy people leaving the system;

Rising premiums.

Specifically, a death spiral occurs when shrinking enrollment leads to a deteriorating risk pool (or when healthy people leave the plan due to the cost). That leads to higher premiums for the people remaining in the insurance pools, which causes enrollment to shrink even further, continuing the cycle until the entire system fails.

The latest government figures show enrollment in the Affordable Care Act is slightly down from last year. Through Jan. 31, 2017, some 12.2 million people were signed up for coverage through a federal or state marketplace, which is a decrease of 500,000, or 4 percent, from the same point last year.

Experts noted that marketplace sign-ups were running in line with their 2016 pace as of the middle of January, which experts said might suggest the decline in sign-ups was somehow related to the Trump administration, not an impending death spiral.

For example, the Trump administration decided to at least partially halt marketing and outreach encouraging people to sign up for health coverage.

But experts say the enrollment decline isn’t an indication the health care law is in a death spiral. There is no direct connection, they said, showing that the declining enrollment is causing premiums to increase.

Why not? Because federal government subsidies in the form of tax credits are largely shielding customers from feeling the premium increase.

As we have reported, premiums are increasing. But that isn’t affecting the cost for most consumers, due to built-in subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The subsidies cap premium prices at a certain percentage of income for anyone below 400 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2016 that would be $47,520 for a single person).

Among the people who have signed up so far for 2017, 81 percent will receive a subsidy.

Data also shows no uptick in healthy people leaving the health insurance market.

The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports the share of people signing up for health care in the low-risk demographic — ages 18-34 — remains about the same in 2017 as it was in 2016, at 26 percent of enrollees.

“There is no data to indicate a drop in the number of younger enrolled, although the announced policy not to enforce the IRS penalty, if not reversed, could result in a decline over time,” said John Rother, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care.

Hewitt referred to a New York Times article that quotes the president of Aetna saying that in many places people will lose health care insurance.

We couldn’t find that article, but a simple remark on how premiums are rising and insurers are leaving the marketplace is not enough evidence to meet the actuarial definition of a death spiral.

CBO, independent analysis: No death spiral

Others have also concluded that the Affordable Care Act is not in a death spiral. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as part of its recent analysis of the GOP legislation, described the Affordable Care Act as stable.

Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, similarly concluded in a recent analysis that the Affordable Care Act is not in a death spiral.

Fiedler found that marketplace premium increases had little if any impact on health insurance sign-ups and that the impact on the individual market risk pool will more than likely be minor, despite the small decline in enrollment numbers.

“It therefore remains likely that insurers’ individual market business will return to a roughly break-even or slightly profitable position in 2017, absent other policy changes,” Fiedler wrote.

Our ruling

Hewitt said Obamacare is “in a death spiral.”

That’s a specific phrase that describes a process where health people leaving the insurance market causes insurance premiums to rise to the point that more healthy people leave the market. At some point, the system becomes unsustainable.

Experts say there is no evidence that cycle has started with Obamacare, because federal subsidies are keeping people from feeling the brunt of premium increases. The CBO and other independent analyses have found the health care system to be stable.

We rate this claim False.

There you go …

Why his lies work so well

Why his lies work so well

by digby

I found this piece by Jeremy Adam Smith at Salon about why Trump’s overwhelming dishonesty doesn’t seem to bother his supporters to be quite interesting.

How does he get away with it?

Journalists and researchers have suggested many answers, from hyper-biased, segmented media to simple ignorance on the part of GOP voters. But there is another explanation that no one seems to have entertained.

It is that Trump is telling “blue” lies — a psychologist’s term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.

Children start to tell selfish lies at about age three, as they discover adults cannot read their minds: I didn’t steal that toy, Daddy said I could, He hit me first. At around age seven, they begin to tell white lies motivated by feelings of empathy and compassion: That’s a good drawing, I love socks for Christmas, You’re funny.

Blue lies are a different category altogether, simultaneously selfish and beneficial to others — but only to those who belong to your group. As University of Toronto psychologist Kang Lee explained, blue lies fall in between generous white lies and selfish “black” ones. “You can tell a blue lie against another group,” he said, which makes it simultaneously selfless and self-serving. “For example, you can lie about your team’s cheating in a game, which is antisocial, but helps your team.”

In a 2008 study of seven, nine and 11-year-old children — the first of its kind — Lee and colleagues found that children become more likely to endorse and tell blue lies as they grow older. For example, given an opportunity to lie to an interviewer about rule-breaking in the selection process of a school chess team, many were quite willing to do so, older kids more than younger ones. The children telling this lie didn’t stand to selfishly benefit; they were doing it on behalf of their school. This line of research finds that black lies drive people apart, white lies draw them together, and blue lies pull some people together while driving others away.

Around the world, children grow up hearing stories of heroes who engage in deception and violence on behalf of their in-groups. In “Star Wars,” for example, Princess Leia lies about the location of the “secret rebel base.” In the Harry Potter novels (spoiler alert!), the entire life of double-agent Severus Snape is a lie, albeit a “blue” one, in the service of something bigger than himself.

That explains why most Americans seem to accept that our intelligence agencies lie in the interests of national security, and we laud our spies as heroes. From this perspective, blue lies are weapons in intergroup conflict. As Swedish philosopher Sissela Bok once said, “Deceit and violence — these are the two forms of deliberate assault on human beings.” Lying and bloodshed are often framed as crimes when committed inside a group — but as virtues in a state of war.

This research — and those stories — highlight a difficult truth about our species: We are intensely social creatures, but we’re prone to divide ourselves into competitive groups, largely for the purpose of allocating resources. People can be prosocial — compassionate, empathic, generous, honest — in their groups, and aggressively antisocial toward out-groups. When we divide people into groups, we open the door to competition, dehumanization, violence — and socially sanctioned deceit.

“People condone lying against enemy nations, and since many people now see those on the other side of American politics as enemies, they may feel that lies, when they recognize them, are appropriate means of warfare,” said George Edwards, a Texas A&M political scientist and one of the country’s leading scholars of the presidency.

If we see Trump’s lies not as failures of character but rather as weapons of war, then we can come to see why his supporters might see him as an effective leader. From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump’s campaign and presidency.

Research by Alexander George Theodoridis, Arlie Hochschild, Katherine J. Cramer, Maurice Schweitzer and others have found that this kind of lying seems to thrive in an atmosphere of anger, resentment and hyper-polarization. Party identification is so strong that criticism of the party feels like a threat to the self, which triggers a host of defensive psychological mechanisms.

For millions and millions of Americans, climate change is a hoax, Hillary Clinton ran a sex ring out of a pizza parlor, and immigrants cause crime. Whether they truly believe those falsehoods or not is debatable — and possibly irrelevant. The research to date suggests that they see those lies as useful weapons in a tribal us-against-them competition that pits the “real America” against those who would destroy it.

It’s in blue lies that the best and worst in humanity can come together. They reveal our loyalty, our ability to cooperate, our capacity to care about the people around us and to trust them. At the same time, blue lies display our predisposition to hate and dehumanize outsiders, and our tendency to delude ourselves.

This is where we usually come to the part where liberals are supposed to reach out to Trump voters and tell them how much they feel their pain. But that won’t work either. That doesn’t mean, however, that the answer doesn’t come from trying to seek out people’s better angels:

This hints at the solution, which starts with the idea that we must appeal to the best in each other. While that may sound awfully idealistic, the applications of that insight are very concrete. In a new paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology, D.J. Flynn and Brendan Nyhan, both of Dartmouth College, along with Jason Reifler, summarize everything science knows about “false and unsupported beliefs about politics.”

They recommend a cluster of prosaic techniques, such as presenting information as imagery or graphics, instead of text. The best combination appears to be graphics with stories. But this runs up against another scientific insight, one that will be frustrating to those who would oppose Trump’s lies: Who tells the story matters. Study after study shows that people are much more likely to be convinced of a fact when it “originates from ideologically sympathetic sources,” as the paper says — and it helps a lot if those sources look and sound like them.

In short, it is white conservatives who must call out Trump’s lies, if they are to be stopped.

So what do the rest of us do until some white conservatives from the heartland take it upon themselves to tell the truth to their brethren. (Some are, by the way. Like this guy.In fact, there are more of them than I’ve seen in years right now.)

What can the rest of us do in the meantime? We must make accuracy a goal, even when the facts don’t fit our emotional reality. We start by verifying information, seeking out different and competing sources, cultivating a diverse social network, sharing information with integrity — and admitting when we fail. That’s easy. But the most important and difficult thing we can do right now, suggests this line of research, is to put some critical distance between us and our groups — and so lessen the pressure to go along with the herd.

Donald Trump lies, yes, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us, his supporters included, need to follow his example.

I think this is vital. There’s a lot of herding right now, on all sides of the political spectrum. I think the most important thing we can do is true to be a clear-headed as we can and not get sucked into the vortex of lies and spin and obfuscation that exists everywhere in our culture. It’s very, very difficult. But if you inform yourself and maintain a healthy skepticism and rely to some extent on your instincts, I think you can keep your head most of the time.

What else can we do?

.

Leu-seur

Leu-seur

by digby

It looks like last week’s legislative train wreck took its toll on Trump’s approval rating:

He said he was a winner. He’s not.

.

Trump tipped his hand about Nunes ten days ago ago #hecanthelphimself

Trump tipped his hand about Nunes a couple of weeks ago

by digby

It’s almost impossible to believe that Nunes hasn’t recused himself from the investigation at this point. But it has to only be a matter of time right? (Right???)

It has been something of a mystery, the whereabouts of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes on the day before his announcement that he saw information suggesting that communications of then-President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers may have been swept up in surveillance of other foreign nationals.

One source told CNN that Nunes, a California Republican, was seen on the White House grounds the day before his announcement. In a phone interview, Nunes confirmed to CNN that he was on the White House grounds that day — but he said he was not in the White House itself. (Other buildings, including the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, are on the same grounds.)

No one in the White House was aware that he was there, Nunes said.

The California Republican said he was there for additional meetings “to confirm what I already knew” but said he wouldn’t comment further so as to not “compromise sources and methods.” He went to the building because he needed a secure area to view the information, he told CNN.

Nunes also pushed back strongly against an account in The Daily Beast that suggested efforts of subterfuge in his path to his sources that day.

“I was in a cab with staff and we dropped them off before I went to my meeting,” he said. “Anything other than that is just false.”

Nunes also told CNN he had been working on nailing down the surveillance information before Trump’s unsubstantiated claim earlier this month that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama.

Look, it’s been pretty obvious that he got this information from the White House since Trump himself telegraphed over a week ago that “something” was coming:

Trump told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that despite all the denials from every institution and person in a position to know, “You’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.”

He always tips his hand. He can’t help himself.

.

So much for so much winning

So much for so much winning

by digby

I wrote about “the debacle” for Salon this morning:

In early December I wrote a piece recounting all of President Barack Obama’s attempts to woo Republicans and wondered whether members of the Tea Party — represented by the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus — would save Obamacare by once again refusing to go along with the GOP’s leadership. And by gosh, they went and did it again. By all accounts, the Freedom Caucus wouldn’t accept Paul Ryan’s draconian “replacement” for Obamacare because its members didn’t merely wish to return to the time before the Affordable Care Act was enacted; they wanted to take the health care system back to the time of Dickensian England.

Mainstream conservatives, on the other hand, were willing to deny millions of people health care but figured that their seats might be in jeopardy if they went as far as the Freedom Caucus demanded. This bill died the way that everything dies in the Republican Congress — at the hands of fanatics who will not take yes for an answer.

The best meme circulating on Twitter during the negotiations was this one:

Speaker Paul Ryan deserves the lion’s share of the blame for this debacle. He’s the allegedly serious wonk who was supposed to be able to whip up a quick replacement in a matter of days that House Republicans could get through on reconciliation in the Senate with 50 votes, Trump would sign it and victory would be at hand in no time. That didn’t work out. Ryan’s alleged grasp of policy was always a Beltway delusion, largely based on his love of “Atlas Shrugged” and those blue, blue eyes. The health care bill he slapped together was a monstrosity that failed on every level, from cost savings to coverage, and it pleased absolutely no one. The train wreck of a negotiation process shows that Ryan is just as bad at political leadership as he is at policy.

In an insightful piece in The Atlantic about the GOP’s inability to pass such an important piece of legislation, McCay Coppins observed that the party has been avoiding governance for nearly a decade and simply no longer knows how to do it. He wrote:

Indeed, without any real expectation of their bills actually being enacted, the legislative process mutated into a platform for point-scoring, attention-getting, and brand-building. At its most benign, this dynamic manifested itself in performative filibusters and symbolic votes that had no meaningful effect beyond raising a senator’s profile or appeasing the cable news-watching constituents back home.

That certainly explains why GOP voters were so ready to cast their ballots for Donald Trump as president. He is obviously the leader the party was waiting for.

I mentioned the other day that when Obama ran on “fixing Washington” and “bringing people together,” the Republicans came up with a clever plan to obstruct him at every turn and then crow that he failed to fulfill his promise. It worked pretty well. Obama spent his entire first term trying to reach out to Republicans to no avail, but even today it’s an article of faith on the right that Obama was “divisive.”

After the “repeal and replace” debacle, we can see there is a corollary with Trump. He didn’t promise to bring people together but rather ran on a simple platform of “winning.” He was supposed to be the guy who could just walk into any room and hammer out a deal so fast it would make our heads spin. He claimed he had a method of defeating ISIS “quickly and effectively and having total victory.” He would build that wall and make Mexico pay for it. He would immediately tear up all the existing trade deals and negotiate new ones on America’s terms. In fact, he was going to win so much in every way that we’d get sick of all the winning and beg him to stop.

And against all odds through an anachronistic constitutional fluke, Trump won the Electoral College vote despite coming up millions of votes short in the popular count — the real measure of his popularity. It was a win that wasn’t really a win, and he clearly knows it. As president, Trump has suffered one defeat after another. From the disaster of his travel ban to the fiasco of the health care strategy and the Michael Flynn debacle (as well as the ongoing Russia scandal), his new administration is a catastrophic fail so far. The question now is when his voters are going to realize that Trump is not the winner he said he was.

Many people knew this before he was elected, including some Republicans:

After the House leadership pulled the halth care bill from being voted on Friday, this quote from Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal” made the rounds on social media:

You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press and you can throw in a little hyperbole, But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

But that book wasn’t written by Trump. It was written by his ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz. Trump’s real belief is that when you don’t deliver the goods, let them sue and get them agree to take pennies on the dollar. When you fail, always blame someone else.

Trump had signaled throughout the health care debate that he didn’t really want to deliver anything at all. He said he believed the best thing to do was let health care deteriorate so that people would blame the Democrats. On his terms then, he won.

And Trump actually loses a lot in life. He goes bankrupt and is sued and exposed as a fake and fraud with alarming frequency. He constantly lives on the edge of self-destruction, and when he is caught, he dances away by blaming others. Indeed, except for having been born wealthy, Trump isn’t a winner at all. He’s a survivor, which is not what he’s been selling. And he might survive as president.

The question is whether the country will survive as well. It’s already obvious we won’t be winning.

.

“Flexibility is the first principle of politics.” by @BloggersRUs

“Flexibility is the first principle of politics.”
by Tom Sullivan


Photo by EPA.

Isn’t this about the time Fox News would condemn a Democratic president for not getting tough with Russia? They’re all about principles, right? Then again, as Nixon said, “Flexibility is the first principle of politics.” Fox News is certainly flexible.

Buzzfeed:

Russian police in riot gear arrested a leading opposition leader and hundreds of protestors on Sunday in Moscow, as the biggest protests Russia has seen in years bloomed in cities across the country.

Hours after this crackdown on what appeared to be largely peaceful gatherings, the Trump administration did not issue any statements about the arrests.

Alexei Navalny, one of Russia’s most prominent critics of President Vladimir Putin, organized the gatherings to raise pressure on Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In March, Navalny accused Medvedev of accepting bribes that he used to purchase mansions and yachts.

And the BBC:

In Moscow, protesters filled Pushkin square and some climbed the monument to poet Alexander Pushkin shouting “impeachment”. Turnout was estimated to be between 7,000 and 8,000, according to police.

The police said 500 protesters had been arrested in the capital alone, but a rights group, OVD Info, put that number at at least 700.

Paid protesters, probably. George Soros is everywhere.

Ah, here we go (8:11 p.m. EDT Sunday night). Only took a day:

Weak. Cue Sean Hannity for a special segment on Obama golfing through an international crisis.

Oh. Right.

Bad bets

Bad bets

by digby

A lot of people bet that a Republican congress would be able to pass a bill to fulfill the number on promise they have made for the last seven years once they got a Republican president in the White House. But these people actually put money on it:

They should have known better. The Freedom Caucus runs this country. Nothing gets done unless they want it done. And they wanted full repeal with nothing to replace it. That’s the deal.

The is the Freedom Caucus ad, by the way:

.

.

Separated at birth

Separated at birth

by digby

It’s been driving me nuts that Neil Gorsuch looks like someone else and I couldn’t figure it out. I figured it out:

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch

America’s Funniest Home Videos host Tom Bergeron

Gorsuch even has that same game show smarminess about him. Except, you know, he’s a wingnut horror show.

.