Buy

Nihongo Gear
Buy

Skully-Chan Stuff!
Buy

my novel!
Buy

thepete.mag!
thepete.tumblr.com

thepete.tumblr.com

Stuff I like, most of which isn't mine. For stuff I like that IS mine, visit thepete.com

Or buy something from petesofficial.com

Aug 19
kateoplis:

“There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:

The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.
Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.
More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for subsidies — finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he’s completely ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.
We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?”
Paul Krugman: Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition | NYT

Right on.  Then, there’s this.

kateoplis:

There are multiple errors and misrepresentations in Niall Ferguson’s cover story in Newsweek — I guess they don’t do fact-checking — but this is the one that jumped out at me. Ferguson says:

The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Readers are no doubt meant to interpret this as saying that CBO found that the Act will increase the deficit. But anyone who actually read, or even skimmed, the CBO report (pdf) knows that it found that the ACA would reduce, not increase, the deficit — because the insurance subsidies were fully paid for.

Now, people on the right like to argue that the CBO was wrong. But that’s not the argument Ferguson is making — he is deliberately misleading readers, conveying the impression that the CBO had actually rejected Obama’s claim that health reform is deficit-neutral, when in fact the opposite is true.

More than that: by its very nature, health reform that expands coverage requires that lower-income families receive subsidies to make coverage affordable. So of course reform comes with a positive number for subsidies — finding that this number is indeed positive says nothing at all about the impact on the deficit unless you ask whether and how the subsidies are paid for. Ferguson has to know this (unless he’s completely ignorant about the whole subject, which I guess has to be considered as a possibility). But he goes for the cheap shot anyway.

We’re not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers. The Times would require an abject correction if something like that slipped through. Will Newsweek?”

Paul Krugman: Unethical Commentary, Newsweek Edition | NYT

Right on.  Then, there’s this.


  1. herearetwoboops reblogged this from kateoplis
  2. underthemountainbunker reblogged this from kateoplis
  3. crownryking reblogged this from kateoplis and added:
    Newsweek really?!
  4. politicoll reblogged this from kateoplis
  5. kosmoskrap reblogged this from kateoplis
  6. burritotori reblogged this from kateoplis
  7. thirddegree reblogged this from sirbromanguyboy
  8. justdianaherself reblogged this from kateoplis
  9. aromanholiday reblogged this from pablojavier
  10. horabarris reblogged this from reafan
  11. sirbromanguyboy reblogged this from reafan
  12. reafan reblogged this from kateoplis
  13. mmmm-brains reblogged this from katedanley
  14. eleniwins reblogged this from kobysattva
  15. iluvcactus reblogged this from kateoplis
  16. deliciouskerosene reblogged this from kateoplis and added:
    Even putting aside that Newsweek’s articles have been declining in quality, it’s good on Mr. Ferguson to address...
  17. book20 reblogged this from kateoplis
  18. kobysattva reblogged this from implodesoncontact
  19. implodesoncontact reblogged this from katedanley
  20. hellotaralee reblogged this from ashleelisbeth and added:
    Haters gonna hate.
  21. socoloredin reblogged this from kateoplis
  22. ashleelisbeth reblogged this from kateoplis
  23. agentvi reblogged this from kateoplis
  24. katedanley reblogged this from missbananafish
  25. missbananafish reblogged this from nanner
  26. viviano reblogged this from kateoplis
  27. bencourts reblogged this from kateoplis