Archive

Reuters blog archive

from The Great Debate:

America: The anecdotal nation

In America today, anecdotes have become the new facts.

Consider Obamacare. Opponents have produced ads featuring apparently ordinary Americans telling stories about the travails forced upon them by the Affordable Care Act. One ad, financed by the Koch brothers, highlighted a leukemia sufferer named Julie Boonstra, who claimed that Obamacare had raised the cost of her medications so much that she was faced with death! Pretty dramatic stuff -- except that numerous fact-checkers found she would actually save $1,200 under Obamacare.

But what are you going to believe -- a sob story or a raft of statistics about the 7.5 million Americans who have signed up and the paltry 1 million folks who had policies canceled?

Or take global warming. Anecdotally speaking, conservatives have insisted that global warming must be a hoax because we have had such cold winters -- never mind the scientists who have documented the Earth’s rising temperature. But what are you going to believe -- the seasonal chill or the consensus of thousands of climate scientists whose data overwhelmingly support global warming?

Admittedly, anecdotes are an appealing way to dramatize issues. But, as the Boonstra ad and the winter stories demonstrate, there is a problem. However captivating they are, anecdotes often undermine facts – and the truth. Yes, they provide a story, but they seldom provide the whole story. What we get is often misleading, sometimes downright deceptive.

from The Great Debate:

Why corporations don’t deserve religious freedom

On March 25 the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, whose outcomes will decide whether corporations can exempt themselves from provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), based on religious beliefs. The cases challenge a provision of the ACA that requires employer-provided insurance plans to include contraception coverage.

The rulings’ importance extends beyond the ACA, however. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, its companion case, are also about Citizens United -- which established that corporate personhood includes freedom of speech, exercised, in part, by giving money to political causes. Now the court will decide whether corporations have freedom of religion as well, and whether on the basis of those rights, corporations can deprive services to others.

from Nicholas Wapshott:

Why you should ignore the latest attack on Obamacare

The debate around the Affordable Care Act has been mired in muddle and misinformation from the start. The latest example of deliberate obfuscation by universal healthcare’s opponents comes with publication of the Congressional Budget Office’s latest glimpse into the future, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024.”

All economic forecasting comes with a health warning -- peering into the future is as riven with unforeseen danger as any other science fiction. The CBO, however, offers a cool-headed attempt to equip lawmakers and government officials with an estimate of how the economy may perform in the years ahead. It is not intended to back one side of the Obamacare debate over the other.

from The Great Debate:

2014: Another election about Obamacare

Here we go again.

2014 will be the third election in a row in which Obamacare is the central issue. The Affordable Care Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law in March 2010, contributed to a fierce voter backlash against Democrats in November 2010. After the Supreme Court upheld the law in June 2012, the issue seemed to be settled by Obama's re-election that November.

But no.

The botched Obamacare rollout this year has again thrust the issue to the top of the political agenda. Republicans are counting on opposition to Obamacare to propel them to a majority in the Senate next year. A conservative group is already running an ad attacking Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) for supporting Obamacare: “Next November, if you like your senator, you can keep her. If you don't, you know what to do.”

from Reihan Salam:

The death of the Obamacare individual mandate

Obamacare is best understood as a collection of carrots and sticks designed to expand access to insurance coverage. But what happens to Obamacare if we get rid of the sticks? It looks like we're about to find out.

During the Obamacare debate, many conservatives, myself included, warned that once the law was in place, the sticks would prove politically impossible to enforce, the carrots would have to get more and more generous to compensate, and the end result would be a fiscal calamity. We won’t know if this dire projection will be fully borne out for some time. What we do know is that at least one of the most important Obamacare sticks, the individual mandate, is already getting watered down, and it’s not crazy to imagine that it will at some point be abandoned. Before we get to the individual mandate, though, consider the carrots and sticks that apply to state governments and employers.

from Nicholas Wapshott:

Healthcare.gov: Private shame, public blame

The glitches that have dogged the government’s universal healthcare site have cast a dark shadow over the presidency and over the Democratic Party as they enter an election year when they could easily lose the Senate. The failure of anyone within the Obama administration to notice in the three long years of preparation that something was seriously amiss is an abject failure of management that has led to a self-inflicted political catastrophe.

The inept rollout has allowed the president’s enemies to claim that that is what comes of allowing the government to interfere in the healthcare market. Obamacare’s troubled birth is cited as irrefutable evidence that the public sector is particularly ill-fitted to deal with something as important as healthcare. Had the process been left to the private sector, they argue, the website would have worked and Americans been better served.

from The Great Debate:

Can states’ rights work for liberals?

Can states' rights work for liberals? It has always been a conservative cause. Conservatives use states' rights to resist federal policies that protect civil rights, voting rights and abortion rights. Today, however, federal action is often blocked. So progressive states are passing laws that bypass gridlocked Washington and advance the liberal agenda on their own.

In his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention, Barack Obama criticized pundits who “like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states.” His rejoinder: “I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America.”

from The Great Debate:

GOP on Obamacare: Divide and conquer

“Remember the strategy for stopping Obamacare we laid out to you back in July,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) told the House Republican conference last week. “Targeted legislative strikes aimed at shattering the legislative coalition the president has used to force his law on the nation.”

Thirty-nine House Democrats -- one in five -- voted for the measure. Democratic leaders breathed a cautious sigh of relief. Earlier last week, they feared that 100 or more anxious Democrats might defect. President Barack Obama's “fix” for the Affordable Care Act, announced on Thursday, held back what might have been a tidal wave of defections.

from Stories I’d like to see:

Finding Obamacare’s authors; assessing J&J’s CEO culpability; and grading Chris Christie

1. Finding the folks who wrote Obamacare:

As I report a story I am writing about Obamacare, it’s become clear to me that -- as we are already seeing with the controversy over people getting their insurance plans dropped -- there are all kinds of issues related to provisions in the massive law that are bound to get lots more attention once the website is working. A few weeks ago in this column, for example, I mentioned the as-yet-little-noticed high penalties that smokers will have to pay.

As with the smoking penalty, many of these issues are related to narrow provisions that are hard to spot in a 906-page law. But as someone who has now read those 906 pages I can also report that, in addition to the substantive issues likely to become bigger deals as the law is implemented, there are also potholes soon to come because the law is filled with inconsistencies, gaps, and just plain wording errors. More generally, even for legal writing, it’s badly constructed and seems written to torment even someone who is used to reading legislation.

from Cancer in Context:

Obamacare and Cancer – top doctor sees no maligancy

With the Obamacare rhetoric flying, the president of the nation's leading cancer doctors'  group says worried cancer patients may be unnecessarily concerned. He has come to the view that Obamacare will be a boon for cancer patients, and a high-profile advocate for the controversial new national health care policy.

"I think what’s true for your average cancer patient is that nothing changes,” Dr. Clifford Hudis, president of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), told me recently. 

  •