3 ms·

Are you arguing that the inclusion of political opinions negates the value of the author's actuarial discussions? If so, why would that be the case? If the auth

by jarrett 13y ago

Are you arguing that the inclusion of political opinions negates the value of the author's actuarial discussions? If so, why would that be the case? If the author's statements about actuarial science are incorrect, why not just say so? Or is it that you don't trust the author, so you suspect the factual claims underlying his argument are false? If that's the case, then why not cite outside sources to demonstrate as much?

humanrebar 13y ago
It's not about negating his points or trusting the author. I actually liked the piece. Until I reached the part of the article that started talking about how the free market failed. Characterizing the pre-ACA health insurance system as a free market is not a given and deserves much more discussion. I've already commented on the other issues I had with the end of the article, but at the end I felt that the real conclusion of the article (ACA! With exclamation points!) was at the end and that the points earlier served to support that conclusion. As far as facts go, I don't have much factual issue with the piece except for the reliance on anecdote and his errors in omission. As far as outside sources, the Atlantic article linked in these comments is good. I also like the coverage of the topic in the EconTalk podcast. For instance: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.htm...