Many of my criticisms have been directed toward partisan advocates who were and continue to be deliberate in their framing of complicated issues by using leading words such as 'access', which doesn't mean what most people think they are hearing be said. Or when they say that the health care reform will save money and then point to the CBO score in hopes that the net federal budget effect of having raised enough taxes will be equated by people as being the same thing.But I've also been critical of the main stream media , who consistently failed to do much beyond cover the horse race aspects of the debate and repeat the shibboleths of both sides. There were truly very few brights spots. And the dimness continues to this day. To wit:
A Reuters piece that reports on the number of Americans who may face a penalty for not complying with the individual mandate to buy insurance. The rather flaccid writing is mostly fine covering some of the basic facts, but then falls off the rails completely.
"The new law waives insurance premiums for those with very low incomes as well as some other groups, while subsidies are provided to help poorer people buy coverage."Um, what? The law waives insurance premiums? For someone to waive something, doesn't that imply that they set the price and are the seller of that item? Is the insurance company going to be forced to cover that person for free? Of course not; the taxpayers are going to buy the policy for the low income person.
What Kim Dixon would have written or Paul Simao would have edited if they cared about accuracy would have been that "the new law provides full premium subsides for those with very low incomes and some other groups and partial subsides for those up to 400% of the poverty limits."
Yet that is a far different thing than saying the cost was waived. No-cost means it was free, so no one had to make any sacrifice in order to provide it. Put aside that if the government did waive the fee of a private firm - i.e. force them to give away a product or service for no payment - that would be stealing or at least a taking, and they would have suffered.
But my point here is that the tax payers are getting screwed out of any kind of appreciation for buying that person a health insurance policy. And, the same free rider and moral hazard problem we face by having only 1/2 the population pay income taxes gets worse.
I am not suggesting that people who benefit from government programs ought to write thank-you notes to the taxpayers who fund them, but can't we at least be straight that there are not any ObamaFaireys that waive away price tags with magic wands? Someone is always picking up the tab.
Posts
