Really fucking stupid!
On July 7 in the New York Times one of the most far-left-wing healthcare policy wonks, The Incidental Economist, penned one of his typical far-left-wing attacks on the public Part C Medicare Advantage health plan program. His nonsense opinion included all the usual shit about "substantial" subsidies to Part C beneficiaries (3%), no understanding that anyone on a public Part C health plan is also on Original Democratic Party Medicare (it is not an either/or choice but and addititve choice), no acknowledgement of the fact that in making that additive choice 98% of Original Democratic-Party Medicare beneficiaries make other -- mostly private -- insurance arrangements because Original Democratic-Party Medicare sucks, no mention of Part C's annual out of pocket spending limit (Original Democratic-Party Medicare has none) which is a major reason people choose Part C as their supplement, the claim that "many" beneficiaries pay no Part C premium (maybe a few percent nationwide as explained in recent left-wing Harvard1 research), calling Original Medicare "traditional," and so forth. At least he left out the typcial seniors are stupid/gym-membership slur favored by the rest of the left.
But a funny thing happened in the Comments section of the article. This over the top lefty was attacked by his New York Times brethren as a "conservative economist," a shill for insurance companies, and worse. Apparently -- this is the only explanation I can figure -- he was attacked by his fellow travelers because he mentioned Newt Gingrich, an over-the-hill Republican politician who has had no role in government in 15 years. Below are some of the most reader-liked comments (with the actual facts)
Thanks to the New York Times, you now have every looney left lie about Medicare in one place (other than my earlier post on the same subject).
1I know. That's redunant.
Comments