Skip to main content

In a recent column, Johah Goldberg admonishes young Obama supporters to sign up for Obamacare. In some cases, Mr. Goldberg will get his wish, as for people with pre-existing conditions, Obamacare is their only option. Of course, and perhaps to Mr. Goldberg’s chagrin, this will change in 2014 when insurers will have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. But concern that sick people receive healthcare was not Mr. Goldberg’s point. That would be out of character.

Instead, Mr. Goldberg seems to believe he’s making a profound mathematical argument against Obamacare: that the price of a premium under Obamacare is greater than the price of a premium from a private health insurer.

In other words, Mr. Goldberg asserts:

Obamacare premium > Private insurance premium

Mr. Goldberg has already provided the math on the Obamacare side of the equation, using the Kaiser Family Foundation’s subsidy calculator to determine the insurance rate for a 26-year old non-smoker under Obamacare, which happens to be $2,512 per year. (Oddly, he seems to deride the notion that smokers should pay more than non-smokers).

What’s missing is the number for private insurance. Fortunately, the Kaiser Family Foundation has that info also: $5,668 annually for an individual HMO plan. Now, most people can eyeball these numbers, and determine that the premium for Obamacare is actually ~less~ than the average individual premium for a private HMO. But what if you’re someone like Mr. Goldberg, to whom this numerical relationship is not obvious?

Fortunately, there is a web site for remedial elementary school students that helps them grasp the concepts of “less than” and “greater than”. Just to make sure that I was right, I entered the numbers into TutorVista's Less Than Greater Than Calculator. Sure enough, the calculator confirmed my intuiton that... that $2,512 < $5,668:

This must come as quite a shock to the innumerate Mr. Goldberg! But forget about these fictional 26-year olds. Who cares about them? If I’m going to look at healthcare from a conservative perspective, the only thing that matters is me, and my wallet, right? So what does Obamacare look like for a 47-yr. old dufus like me with pre-existing conditions?

My annual premium in 2012 was $8,652. If I use the same calculator that Mr. Goldberg uses for our 26-year old, my annual premiums under Obamacare would be $4,717. I wonder which is less? Obamacare or private insurance? $4,717 or $8,652? Once again, TutorVista to the rescue!

Well, wouldn't you know it?! Obamacare wins again. By thousands of dollars. But I won't do that math on the difference I'll save, as I'm not certain Mr. Goldberg could comprehend it.

I join Mr. Goldberg in his admonishments to young people to sign up for Obamacare. In fact, I encourage all people to sign up for Obamacare, as in many cases, it will cost less than a comparable private plan. And Republicans know this. That’s why they’re furiously fighting against it. As Tom Daschle famously said:

"Let me tell you something, if Democrats take the White House and pass a big-government healthcare plan, that's it. Game over. Government will dominate the economy like it does in Europe. Conservatives will spend the rest of their lives trying to turn things around and they will fail."
There's a reason Jonah Goldberg is the only conservative you will see encouraging people to try Obamacare. And, I fear that is due to insufferable innumeracy.

Originally posted to johnfromberkeley on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:16 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Poll

Which dollar amount is less?

89%122 votes
10%14 votes

| 136 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He's insufferable in so many ways... (29+ / 0-)

    ...and now you've added this nice smackdown.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:28:51 AM PDT

    •  I was just going to say (10+ / 0-)

      when you combine the words "insufferable" and "Jonah Goldberg," you don't really have to add any qualifiers.

      This is an untalented hack who would be working a menial job without health care if it weren't for the fact that Mommy was Queen Bee Clinton Harasser and Driver of the Monica Lewinsky scandal Lucianne Goldberg.

      Without her, Jonah would be nothing.

      Well, Jonah is still nothing, but unfortunately he is being remunerated far beyond his paltry worth.

      By the way this diary makes me sad. When I was a healthy, non-smoking 26-year-old in the 70s and my parents finally persuaded me that I needed health insurance, I signed up with Kaiser for less than $30 a month.

      Now go figure how much the Obamacare figure, let alone the Kaiser figure has outstripped inflation, and ... time for single payer!

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:20:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On the other hand (24+ / 0-)

    "Jonah Goldberg" and "insufferable" are exactly equal.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:29:00 AM PDT

  •  Provide the link to the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tuesdayschilde

    Goldberg commentary you are discussing.  Without this the diary makes no sense.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:29:39 AM PDT

  •  :-PPP Is having a doughy pantload (6+ / 0-)

    complicated by innumeracy a preexisting condition?

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes

    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

  •  Sssshhhh, don't wake him up (8+ / 0-)

    Not that most young people will listen to Jonah Goldberg (whoever he is), but as long as he's telling people to sign up, that's a good thing, even if for the wrong reasons.
    Those numbers are dramatic. Almost cut by half! I hope that works out to be true.
    The last time I had health insurance, several years ago, I was not in a group, over 45, preexisting conditions and was paying nearly $1000 PER MONTH! And on top of that, the insurance company 1) decided to go out of the healthcare business (blaming Obamacare), while 2) continuing to bill me and 3) denying payment to my Doctor and Quest lab, sticking me with over a grand that went to a collection agency. Bas+ards.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:04:25 AM PDT

  •  Why should smokers pay more? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radmul

    A 26 year old smoker is no more likely to use medical services than a 26 year old non-smoker. In fact, the smoker may use less because nicotine is an excellent appetite suppressant and the smoker will weigh less, and in some ways, be healthier than the non-smoker.

    Smoking's effects are cumulative and long-term. You could convincingly argue that a 50 year old smoker that has smoked for decades will begin exhibiting effects, and that by 70, the effects may be dramatic. But earlier than that, there is really no reason to charge smokers more for health insurance.

    A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

    by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:24:48 PM PDT

    •  As a tax on stupidity (8+ / 0-)

      The health issues are well known, any young person choosing to be a smoker is an idiot.

      •  Isn't early death enough of a tax? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

        by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:27:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about the other, very serious, (6+ / 0-)

          and very expensive health consequences?  No let's ignore those.

          With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

          by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 01:54:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who's ignoring them? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radmul, codairem

            The negative health effects of long-term smoking are well documented. Including early death, on average 7 years earlier than non-smokers. Thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in Social Security and Medicare payouts per smoker. Less any increased expenses at the end-of-7-year-shorter-life, of course.

            You're not going to win this argument on financial terms because the math is against you.

            A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

            by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:12:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Even presuming that your (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MPociask, wishingwell

              presumptions regarding the actual health costs of smoking are accurate (which I do not necessarily accept.  Show me data), your comment is based on the faulty premise that health insurance premiums should be based on the socialized cost of a practice.  In fact, the premise behind charging smokers more is because their health care costs are higher than those of non-smokers.  Your premise brings other factors (the "benefit" to society of their earlier death) into the cost equation.  While that might calculate the overall costs to society, it does not calculate the cost of their health care.  Should we charge less for heath insurance to people whose genetic background indicates that they will live shorter lives?  That is the logical conclusion of your faulty premise.

              With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

              by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:25:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And as my husband discovered when in the Quit (0+ / 0-)

                for Life, a big incentive for a lot of smokers to quit is the savings in money in not just the purchase of tobacco products but that many companies charge a smoker more for health coverage. And smokers who quit and go through these type of programs, are finding their insurance premiums decreasing because they are now ex smokers.

                My husband and I went through this program, he finished, I am still mid way through and they talked about as soon as we complete this program, they can send the report to the employer and he will get more money in his paycheck as of a certain date.

                So financial reasons can be an incentive reason for not smoking, no matter the person's age and we found out it is a rather big incentive not to smoke or quit when young . As often the younger one is and just finishing college, the less money they have in their pocket with often having to take entry level jobs or low wage jobs to start with. And middle aged folks like us are finding ourselves having to work for less as well paying jobs can be scarce no matter how old we are. And saving money is saving money and  a big incentive. As a smoker can save 2 ways...through not paying the expensive tobacco products and saving money with their insurance premiums.

                Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

                by wishingwell on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:30:09 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I suppose (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, wishingwell

            hse wants us to provide the costs for dying of cancer caused by smoking.
            Chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, hospital care, nursing home care, palliative care.
            I'm pretty sure those are at least as much as they think they'd 'save' by paying the same as non-smokers.

            BTW, a supervisor where I worked was a chain smoker, at least a pack a day. She got a sore throat that didn't go away. It was cancer, and it had already spread. Got into her spine. She took a disability retirement and died a few months later.

            (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

            by PJEvans on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:12:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  this could well apply to any number of activities. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edg, codairem

        "The health issues are well known, any young person choosing to be a smoker is an idiot."

        drinking, driving, living in a crowded city, engaging in dangerous sports, owning guns, etc., etc., etc. in fact, these listed activities have a much higher current probability of causing you harm/killing you, than smoking does. i'm not going to argue that smoking is either good, or not bad for you, that would be ridiculous, and no one with any common sense would assert that. however, the claim, by everyone, including health insurance companies, that smoking, alone among all human activities, is somehow more dangerous than any of the others stands without empirical basis supporting it. there are no peer reviewed studies to base this claim on, it's simply more socially acceptable to penalize smokers alone, for their risky activity.

        •  Auto insurance and home insurance does vary (0+ / 0-)

          according to where one lives. For instance, we got a discount on renters insurance when we moved to a townhouse that is closer to a fire hydrant than where we lived before and a place that is half brick vs a place that was not.

          Auto insurance premiums vary according to where one lives as we also found out when moving from a small city to a small college town.  They said it is rated according to the number of auto thefts, vandalism, and accidents in a particular county and so on.

          So there are other insurances that charge varying and higher premiums for some of those things you describe like where one lives and in what structure one resides and so on.

          So to me, health insurance is not much different than my auto insurance which charged me more when I lived in a small city than in a small town and charged me more for home insurance because of how close I lived to a fire hydrant and what my building was made of.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:37:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The additional costs are amortized over time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orson, Nowhere Man, wishingwell

      Much like the way most people don't lay down $249,999.99 in cash for a new home, they spread the cost out over several years.

      •  But (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        Smokers die 7 years sooner on average than non-smokers. Thus saving hundreds of thousands in SS and Medicare costs per smoker. Not to mention many thousands of dollars in cigarette taxes paid. Offset against any increases in healthcare costs, I'd wager society comes out ahead financially while smokers lose in several ways.

        A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

        by edg on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:06:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You advance a reasonable hypothesis (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          It might well be true. But it might not be true also. In either case that is the sort of modification that will probably become a common suggestion as the system gains experience.

        •  While there is a savings on soc security and (0+ / 0-)

          medicare for those people, that has nothing to do with our private insurance based system. That would only really pertain to those who are diagnosed and treated for smoking related diseases while on medicaid or medicare, would it not?  As private insurance premium costs are not connected to those federal companies even though I wish there was more connection and single payer.  As medicare does not charge higher premiums because one is a smoker, right ? But insurance companies can and will often do so.   That is because insurance companies are not a medicare program...and private, I would think?

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not following. (0+ / 0-)

            My comment was based on the diarists statement that "Oddly, he seems to deride the notion that smokers should pay more than non-smokers."

            A 26 year old smoker costs no more in medical care than a 26 year old non-smoker. But private individual health insurance costs more for smokers.

            A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

            by edg on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:36:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Remember that end of life care (0+ / 0-)

          can cost several hundreds of thousands over just a few weeks.

          I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

          by CFAmick on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:55:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Remember statistics? (0+ / 0-)

            Twenty-five percent of smokers die before age 50, but only 7% of smokers develop lung cancer. The life expectancy for a smoker in the US is 64 years, or 14 years shorter than non-smokers.

            Also, heart attacks and strokes kill more smokers than all cancers combined and far faster with less cost.

            I repeat: Trying to make a financial case against smoking is a fool's errand. There are many good reasons to eradicate smoking. A phony baloney reason based on medical economics is both false and unneeded.

            A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

            by edg on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:29:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  To pay the additional cost (0+ / 0-)

      of long term health care for non-smokers.

      That's right. Smokers die on average 10 years earlier, and have lower lifetime health costs.  There are actuarial tables that back this up.

      That's why basing everything on monetary cost is a bad idea.  

      Economic Left/Right: -7.38
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
      Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

      by jvance on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:16:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Conservatives cannot do math (3+ / 0-)

    Or logic, or facts.  No surprise here.

  •  Obamacare is private insurance. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeturek, radmul, MPociask

    unfortunately.

    There are some better regulations.

    There are programs to offer subsidies, but the model is still private insurance.

  •  Did anyone expect better of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird

    Did anyone expect better of Lucianne Goldberg's little boy?  Mommy was Linda Tripp's literary agent.  

    I loved when Goldberg used to talk up the Iraq War and  how "we had to support".  Jonah looked pretty healthy to me at the time.  He could have showed his support by enlisting.  

    As Jonah once said:  "I did my bit in the trenches of Clinton's trousers."

    He certainly did his bit in the trenches of someone's trousers to get his cushy teabagger darling status.  

  •  I think his point... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobtmn

    ... is that it's rational for a young, healthy person to not get health insurance until such time as they anticipate using it.  Because the fines are much less than premiums, there's guaranteed issue, and they can't deny pre-existing conditions, there is no clear reason that a young, healthy person should buy before they need it.  Worst case scenario is that they have an emergency, rack up a bunch of healthcare bills, do a quickie bankruptcy and go from there.  Given that young people don't tend to own much (if anything) above the federal bankruptcy exemptions, this sort of thinking is likely economically rational.  I am contemplating doing it myself.

    •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)

      "Worst case scenario is that they have an emergency, rack up a bunch of healthcare bills, do a quickie bankruptcy and go from there."

      Yeah, just like my Dad recommended to me, and I recommend to my young adult daughter... NOT.

      "Worst case scenario is that they have an emergency, rack up a bunch of healthcare bills, do a quickie bankruptcy and go from there."

      "Worst case" as in very, very, bad. That's why health insurance exists. Because the above scenario you described is one you want to avoid... by having health insurance.

      Also, who is "young, healthy"? I've had healthcare all my life, for things like colds, allergies, etc. There have always been people my age around me getting treatment for one thing or another, including when I was 26. I can't count the number of friends I had in college who appeared "young, healthy", but were diabetic, asthmatic, etc. or cancer! What is the plan for them?

      I agree that it's what he meant, and I'm sure you agree it's ridiculous, and not rational. And it's certainly no way to run healthcare in our country.

      But that's where it goes when you don't care about sick people.

    •  Incredibly foolish (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      onanthebarbarian, wishingwell

      I am not young anymore — I'm in my 60s. But the only health issue I have ever had is when I broke my ankle figure skating decades ago. Luckily I had Kaiser at the time and back in the day, it covered everything. I walked (kind of, on crutches) out of the hospital after six days with NO bills.

      My life would have been radically different — all of my life and career choices would have changed — if I had blithely done what you suggest and do a "quickie bankruptcy" (not in fact all that simple).

      Since accidents are one of the leading causes of a young person needing health care, it's not possible to predict when you will need insurance.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:30:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also, if you have any sort of regular job (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell

        or income, you'll probably find this difficult or impossible and will be faced with making monthly payments on that enormous pile of debt until you retire. You'd be pretty much foreclosing on your future.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:32:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This. Also student loans ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wishingwell

          Even if you can get approved for chapter 7, many student loans cannot be discharged by bankruptcy. The population of young, healthy people who find themselves unexpectedly seriously ill or injured is going to include a lot of people who still owe a mountain of money for their education.

          Child support, property tax, and many liens are not wiped away, either. Chapter 7 provides for immediate discharge of some debts ... but not all.

          Just because you're not a drummer doesn't mean that you don't have to keep time. -- T. Monk

          by susanala on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:29:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agree with this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GrumpyOldGeek, Randomfactor, hmi

      Goldberg may be an asshat, but his point  is valid.   If the plan is guaranteed issue, and covers an existing condition from day one, it would make more sense to pay the fine and skip the insurance, especially if your family can afford to pay the first ten grand.   The fact that we don't like it does not make it false.  

      And, no one can predict what the outcome of this "death spiral" might be.   It could end up forcing the whole system towards a single-payer model that excludes insurance companies completely.    Once O'care is in place, their will be lots of incentive to fix it, but almost none to scrap it.

      Religion gives men the strength to do what should not be done.

      by bobtmn on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:45:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is no penalty for not paying the penalty (0+ / 0-)

        The IRS is prohibited from collecting the penalty. They can't reject or delay processing your tax returns, either. But you won't be eligible for the subsidies, either. That's one tradeoff.

        Lower income folks have a higher incentive.

        Another snag is that no insurer will cover anything on the day you sign up. You can't sign up on your way to the hospital for that pesky heart attack you're having. They used to have waiting periods for anything related to a pre-existing condition. Three months comes to mind in my case... Not sure if the ACA changes this.

        "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

        by GrumpyOldGeek on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:38:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  An entire life can be derailed by an accident (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      I know several people in their twenties whose lives were totally messed up by medical bills. A young woman I know had a health crisis when she was taking some time off from college and working a menial job without health insurance, and ended up with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. A quickie bankruptcy isn't that easy, you know, so she couldn't just write off the bills. If it were that easy, everyone would do it. If nothing else, if a person does successfully declare bankruptcy, that person is basically screwed credit-wise for years. She couldn't go back to school because she couldn't get loans, she had bad credit so she she couldn't get a credit card to help fix the credit, she had a hard time finding an apartment because of her credit, and these days many jobs check your credit history before they're willing to hire you. She was stuck living with her family, in a dead-end job, all due to a health problem that wasn't her fault, it just happened.

      Recently she did go back to school, something like five years later--I'm not sure if she did declare bankruptcy or what (I hated to ask), but I'm glad her life is moving ahead again.

  •  When the grossly overweight capon (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, onanthebarbarian

    that is Jonah Goldberg develops coronary artery disease/and/or/Type II diabetes perhaps he will be less of a jackhole.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:09:58 PM PDT

    •  Another reason for him to have joined the military (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobdevo, onanthebarbarian

      They would have had that weight off and gotten him in shape quickly!

      Yes, I remember him being kind of pudgy. Boot camp would have been good for him. It might also have made him a trifle less smug.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 03:33:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  no, it isn't. (0+ / 0-)

    "And, I fear that is due to insufferable innumeracy."

    it's due to the fact that he's stupid. his "insufferable innumeracy" is merely a symptom of his overall stupidity. this is what we get from conservative nepotism, the result of diluted gene pools.

  •  Good, coherent diary. Nice job. (0+ / 0-)

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:07:59 PM PDT

  •  Newer math (0+ / 0-)

    Part of math is being able to tell the difference between apples and oranges. The Kaiser HMO statistic ($5668) for that single insured is not on-your-own privately purchased insurance, but an average of employer-provided policies. In neither case do we know about deductibles (which can be substantial). These are not useful comparisons.

    One alternative view of coming costs can be seen here: http://www.forbes.com/...

    For a somewhat out-of-date review of the complexities involved (and a more optimistic prediction) see here: http://truecostblog.com/...

    •  Doing it your way, Obamacare looks even better (0+ / 0-)

      Of course this is not a comprehensive analysis.

      But, too your point, the Obamacare deductible is supposedly $2,000. My current deductible is $3,000.

      And, the Kaiser statistice IS for employer cost. Which, theoretically should be lower than an individual plan, because the employer buys in bulk.

      So, you're right. An individual plan compared to the Kaiser statistic would cost ~even more~.

  •  And the (0+ / 0-)

    affordable part is . . .  ??

  •  That Less Than Greater Than calculator (0+ / 0-)

    thing is super awesome, I know that I'm going to be using it a lot now that I know about it - thanks for the heads-up!

    They also have a online tool to calculate Centroids - not yet sure what that means exactly, but I suspect that it will end up being mighty handy for placing today's Dems in the proper political landscape . .. .

  •  Your calculator does not include income (0+ / 0-)

    I make too much money (what a joke) and I already have a horrendously expensive employer provided plan.  The best I can figure is that 1) I don't qualify for Obamacare and 2) if I did, my unsubsidized premium would be even more expensive.

    Single payer would have been such a better deal.  This Rube Goldberg compilation of coverages is going to leak people out at every seam.  The worst hit are going to be people who will be moving in and out of eligibility for Medicaid, who are the least capable of handling the avalanche of paperwork.  They simply won't get covered.

    Yes I know that single payer is a political impossibility.  We can't pass common sense legislation any more.

    Economic Left/Right: -7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
    Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

    by jvance on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:23:04 AM PDT

    •  You're right about single payer (0+ / 0-)

      Obama sold out.

      •  No he didn't. (0+ / 0-)

        There's no fucking way single payer would have even made it out of committee.  It was a political impossibility.  That's the really sad part.

        I will admit that for the most vulnerable amongst us, this pile of scrap is better than the pile of fuck-all that we had before.

        Economic Left/Right: -7.38
        Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
        Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

        by jvance on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Click here for the mobile view of the site