Sorry to again be posting a Bloomberg headline that would be better characterized as “wrong” than “strange”. But this really can’t be allowed to pass.
We learn from this article that:
1. About 5% of Americans get their health insurance on the individual market.
2. About 2/3 of districts with an above-average share of people insured on the individual market (i.e., it might be as high as 10%) are represented by Republicans.
The article doesn’t offer any figures over the percent of the population who will get health insurance under Obamacare, but the US Census Bureau a few years ago put the number of uninsured Americans at about 16%. It took me a few seconds to find this info via Google, and it’s buried in the third sentence of the relevant Wikipedia article, so I guess it’s understandable that the incredibly busy Bloomberg reporter (John McCormick in this case) didn’t have time to track it down before deadline. And granted, not all of this 16% will get covered, thanks to the decisions of a number of Republican governors and legislators not to expand Medicaid in their states, but I think this fact is likely to work more in favor of Democrats than against them.
From all this, a sensible conclusion would be that anger over paying higher premiums for individual policies with strengthening standards and policyholder protection, to the extent it exists, poses little threat to Democrats. In any event, the number of individual policy-holders who are dissatisfied with their new plans (ie the ones they get on the state or federal exchange, including subsidies for many) is likely to be quite a bit less than 5%. (The number who would not have suddenly found themselves dropped from their beloved individual policies the moment they or their family-members ever in fact got sick is probably close to zero, but wilful self-deception starts to take over at this point.)
But weirdly, the reporter and his editors decided to go into acrobatics to decide that all this is bad news for Democrats. And not very convincing acrobatics at that.
— A Circassian chief in the Caucasus, speaking to Leo Tolstoy (as reported by Tolstoy).
"I went to Scott Brown and said, ‘If you give us the sixtieth vote for the Citizens United rollback, we won’t go after you,’” he told the New Republic. “I spent a lot of time lobbying him, and met some of his friends and had them lobby him. He said yes. Then he said no. So I wanted to recruit the strongest candidate against him, and I thought that was Elizabeth Warren.”
Schumer was referring to the Disclose Act, which would have enhanced transparency in corporate campaign contributions. That legislation was filibustered by Senate Republicans.
- Talking Points Memo . Later in the piece they have Brown’s response - where he slimes Schumer but doesn’t deny that this is what happened.