NY Times writers discover that money does indeed, grow on trees

We hear a lot of ordinary Americans - those unsophisticated "low information voters" that many on the right are fond of criticizing - talking about getting "free" stuff from Obama; health care, phones, food, housing, and such.

It's idiotic, of course. Only brain dead numbskulls who vote Democratic actually believe that stuff the government gives them is "free" in any meaningful sense of the word. Just because a benefit might be "free" to them, doesn't mean that somebody, somewhere, didn't have to pay taxes to purchase the benefit.

Such idiocy might be excused from uneducated Blutos ("Have a beer. Don't cost nuthin'"). But what about reading such nonsense from a pair of New York Times writers who ostensibly should know better?

Reed Abelson and Katie Thomas wrote a piece on subsidized insurance policies for the New York Times with the following headline: "Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible for Free Policies."

Millions of people could qualify for federal subsidies that will pay the entire monthly cost of some health care plans being offered in the online marketplaces set up under President Obama's health care law, a surprising figure that has not garnered much attention, in part because the zero-premium plans come with serious trade-offs.

Three independent estimates by Wall Street analysts and a consulting firm say up to seven million people could qualify for the plans, but federal officials and insurers are reluctant to push them too hard because they are concerned about encouraging people to sign up for something that might ultimately not fit their needs.

The bulk of these plans are so-called bronze policies, the least expensive available. They require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visits and other benefits like hospital stays.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act say that the availability of free-premium plans -- as well as inexpensive policies that cover more -- shows that it is achieving its goal of making health insurance widely available. A large number of those who qualify have incomes that fall just above the threshold for Medicaid, the government program for the poor, according to an analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company.

The latest analysis was conducted by McKinsey's Center for U.S. Health System Reform, whose independent research has been cited by the federal government and others.

"The whole point of the law was not only to cover the uninsured, but so people didn't have to make choices between food or drugs, or going to the doctor or dentist," said Karen Davis, a health policy expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "It's what it is designed to do."

The adage "You get what you pay for" would seem appropos in this case. And since these consumers are paying nothing, they wholly deserve those niggardly benefits.

But what is it about liberals and government mooches that creates a blind spot that allows them to dismiss the tax contributions of productive Americans so cavalierly? I suspect it assuages their conscience to believe that money grows on trees and wresting cash from taxpayers to subsidize "free" healthcare is something that just doesn't happen. They can't make the psychic connection between cause and effect, ergo, they are free to enjoy their "free" benefits because it doesn't cost anyone anything.

A helluva price to pay to give peace of mind to some of our fellow Americans. 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky


We hear a lot of ordinary Americans - those unsophisticated "low information voters" that many on the right are fond of criticizing - talking about getting "free" stuff from Obama; health care, phones, food, housing, and such.

It's idiotic, of course. Only brain dead numbskulls who vote Democratic actually believe that stuff the government gives them is "free" in any meaningful sense of the word. Just because a benefit might be "free" to them, doesn't mean that somebody, somewhere, didn't have to pay taxes to purchase the benefit.

Such idiocy might be excused from uneducated Blutos ("Have a beer. Don't cost nuthin'"). But what about reading such nonsense from a pair of New York Times writers who ostensibly should know better?

Reed Abelson and Katie Thomas wrote a piece on subsidized insurance policies for the New York Times with the following headline: "Under Health Care Act, Millions Eligible for Free Policies."

Millions of people could qualify for federal subsidies that will pay the entire monthly cost of some health care plans being offered in the online marketplaces set up under President Obama's health care law, a surprising figure that has not garnered much attention, in part because the zero-premium plans come with serious trade-offs.

Three independent estimates by Wall Street analysts and a consulting firm say up to seven million people could qualify for the plans, but federal officials and insurers are reluctant to push them too hard because they are concerned about encouraging people to sign up for something that might ultimately not fit their needs.

The bulk of these plans are so-called bronze policies, the least expensive available. They require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visits and other benefits like hospital stays.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act say that the availability of free-premium plans -- as well as inexpensive policies that cover more -- shows that it is achieving its goal of making health insurance widely available. A large number of those who qualify have incomes that fall just above the threshold for Medicaid, the government program for the poor, according to an analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company.

The latest analysis was conducted by McKinsey's Center for U.S. Health System Reform, whose independent research has been cited by the federal government and others.

"The whole point of the law was not only to cover the uninsured, but so people didn't have to make choices between food or drugs, or going to the doctor or dentist," said Karen Davis, a health policy expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "It's what it is designed to do."

The adage "You get what you pay for" would seem appropos in this case. And since these consumers are paying nothing, they wholly deserve those niggardly benefits.

But what is it about liberals and government mooches that creates a blind spot that allows them to dismiss the tax contributions of productive Americans so cavalierly? I suspect it assuages their conscience to believe that money grows on trees and wresting cash from taxpayers to subsidize "free" healthcare is something that just doesn't happen. They can't make the psychic connection between cause and effect, ergo, they are free to enjoy their "free" benefits because it doesn't cost anyone anything.

A helluva price to pay to give peace of mind to some of our fellow Americans. 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky


RECENT VIDEOS