Friday, December 20, 2013

My Exchange Over Obamacare, with a CPA, Two-Time Gerald Loeb Award Finalist

Here's a twitter exchange I had with Francine McKenna. who is a CPA, Forbes columnist and two-time Gerald Loeb Award finalist. She frequently tweets about fraud and improper accounting practices, yet it appears to me she is in denial about the fraud that is Obamacare. Note, I let her have the last word, mostly because I was stunned:

So I guess her defense of Obamacare is, "Hey, the government has taken from us before, so they should do more of it." And "We are part of a community where we should support the least ambitious with education and healthcare, and by 'we' I mean force everyone to  support (via taxes) my view. Damn, private charity."

Folks, we have a very long, long way to go before there is a general understanding of the benefits of free markets and how they operate, if a CPA, Forbes columnists holds views like these.


  1. yet another good example of why twitter sucks

  2. You're welcome Francine!

    -a healthy kid

  3. This woman may be a CPA but she is an economic dunce and seems to know nothing about public policy analysis. It is indisputable that the Obamacare model exploits the young, the healthy and those who already had insurance in order to subsidize the old, unhealthy and uninsured.

    She makes an inane and intellectually desperate comparison between health insurance and government education, implying that both education and health care are inherently "public goods". Pure nonsense. Then to compound her "progressive" stupidity she makes the ridiculous and unsupported assertion that "we" are only as viable as the most dysfunctional among us. More platitudinous nonsense.

    The woman is a complete collectivist drone and dramatic proof that accountants do not need to have any knowledge of general economic theory in order to ply their trade.

    1. Actually it is disputable that the young are exploited. First, the young person maybe have poor health and would have gone without coverage except for the ACA. Second, in the future the healthy young person can get sick and will benefit from the ACA because the insurance company will not be able to drop them.

      The "rip off the young" talking point is bogus. It's a transfer from the healthy to the unhealthy, not the young to the old.

      Also, health insurance by its nature is collectivist. There is a pool of people who make payments. The healthy people in the pool always transfer money to the unhealthy. If you have health insurance, then you are participating in collectivism.

    2. When insurance is allowed to act as insurance, premiums are basic on risk rather than political expedience. Healthy, low-risk individuals would pay much lower premiums than sickly, high-risk individuals. I'm sure you realize this, but as you hold little regard for intellectual honesty as compared to your sense of cosmic justice you pass off nonsense as reasonable thought. Basically just wanted you to know that we all know you are full of it.

    3. Jerry - what do think the ratio of healthy kids are to unhealthy vs that of older people? Oh yeah, you don't use your brain.

    4. Now, now Matt, don't go using logic and reason. You know this one (like so many) are impervious to it.

    5. "Actually it is disputable that the young are exploited."

      No Jerry, actually it is not disputable. THEY ARE FORCED UNDER THE LAW TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT WHICH MANY WOULD NOT DO VOLUNTARILY. They are being exploited by the crony insurers and their National Socialist masters in DC. This exactly fits the characteristics of a corporatist-fascist regime.

      "The "rip off the young" talking point is bogus. It's a transfer from the healthy to the unhealthy, not the young to the old."

      Wrong again Jerry. As others have pointed out their is a large degree of statistical overlap between being young and being healthy. They are not mutually exclusive categories. That is why the insurance industry and the current regime have specific actuarial targets for coerced participation by young people as a standard for what they consider a successful rollout.

      "Also, health insurance by its nature is collectivist."

      This is the stupidest comment of all Jerry. The term "Collectivist" as it is understood by rational adults refers to a highly centralized, usually totalitarian and coercive system of government in which individual rights are abolished or greatly curtailed in favor of so called collective rights as construed by those in power.

      Health insurance by it's nature is a free market product offered to willing customers at competitive prices. It does not in any way work like or require a collectivist social system to function smoothly. THERE IS NOTHING INTRINSICALLY COLLECTIVIST ABOUT IT, anymore than car insurance or home insurance would be.

      Jerry, you should crawl back under your bridge and spend your time frightening children. Please leave these discussions to people who actually know something and can comment without making jackasses of themselves.

  4. 1. Public education is not a good thing. Ask just about any urban resident. But, wait... She lives in a nice neighborhood. Shouldn't she feel "guilty" about that?
    2. She rids her disdain for property taxes to other people by accepting it as a good thing, yet see #1.
    3. It's not F'n Healthcare! It's INSURANCE - you dummies! Healthcare is distorted, and I'm poorer because of it.
    4. Forget this Forbes contributor. See Krugman and death panels.
    5. Just because your taxes is given to a good cause by the government, doesn't mean your money is magically not stolen. It's still stolen!
    6. " Our communities are only as viable as the quality of life of the least educ advantaged, healthy of our fellow citizens." Yeah, I believe this is what the Soviets, Fascists, and Nazis said before sh*t hit the fan.
    7. Following on #2, her acceptance of being bent over on demand with taxation is creepy and cult-like.
    8. "I think "kids subsidizing" is a red herring." Translation: Shutup Bob!
    9. "The government frequently regulates in consumer and investor best interest." Translation: The government will distort it some more in order to cover up their past BS, and never mind there's no gold in the vaults.
    10. Somebody that advocates that public anything is a public good can only see what is in front of them, and their arguments only go as far as what they're told is to be true. There is no initiative to go beyond the current day's thinking. There is no faith to see opportunities and what possibilities can be.

    - JS

    1. 1. I just asked an ubran resident if public education is a good thing. The urban resident answered "yes, it is a good thing."
      2. see #1
      3. How are you poorer because healthcare is distorted? How much health care do you consume? Most people who consume health care do so because they made bad choices in life.
      4. Krugman's comment about death panels was humor to make a point. He did not mean death panels in the way Palin and the Tea Party described them.
      5. Your money is not "stolen." You are free to leave the country and choosing to remain a US citizen consents to taxation which is authorized by the US Constitution.
      6. The Soviets and Nazis never made that statement.
      7. cult like? coming from a member of the liberty movement? Can you give an example of a policy position you hold which is not also held by Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Tom Woods, etc? Has Ron Paul ever told a lie?
      8. Translation: It's the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy.
      9. Gold below 1200 as predicted. Recall I told everyone here that gold would be under 1200 by the end of the year. It will be 800 this time next year.
      10. Do you drive on public roadways? Will you call the fire dept if your house is on fire? Will you care a cop if someone steals your car?


    2. 1. You, actually, got out of the house?
      2. You need to make a point before you do a "see #x".
      3. 3.1. Because it taxes me because I didn't sign up for it. 3.2. And, if I do sign up for it, it costs more. 3.3 And, if I do sign up for it, the healthcare that I would receive does not match up to the cost of it.
      If it's most people making bad choices, then why should be compensate for them? Perhaps, so they can make more bad choices?
      4. I don't think making the point of rationing healthcare is all that humorous.
      5. As an American Indian, f*** you. So, I guess you agree with the military killing off Indians.
      6. No, they just acted like it was true.
      7. Hey, I'm not the one that pays taxes without making the connection of how much I'm paying.
      8. Yeah, that's stealing.
      9. And, the fiat dollar?
      10. Yeah, you just made my point. Public funded stuff cannot be made better. Only the private sector can improve on things. For example, why must we have public roadways or for that matter cars that physically drive on the ground? Why not improve?

      - JS

    3. 1. I just asked an urban resident if government education is a good thing. The urban resident answered "no, it's an expensive mess".
      2. Property taxes mean you don't own property. And that's scary for old people on a fixed income.
      3. Thousands of dollars poorer every year.
      4. Time will tell
      5. Can I take all my money with me? Also, I have to admit I partially dissent because it's so fun to prick the ego of busy-body “do-gooders” like you. Sorry, I’ll stay for now.
      6. Please see Program of the National Socialist German Workers Party points 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24 & 25 of 25.
      7. Yes, there is disagreement over the government created legal entity called the corporation. And there is the “infamous” debate over inflation vs. deflation. And yes, Ron Paul isn’t infallible. All men are deeply flawed and fallible. That’s exactly why power shouldn’t be centralized with any man or group of men.
      8. Great. I hope you’re right. I would like to purchase some more with my devaluing paper fiat monopoly “money” that's earning 0% in the bank.
      9. Yes, I drive on government roads. I do so very carefully because the government roads are in terrible shape here in Illinois. The government bridges are in very bad shape too by the way. And yes of course I’ll call the government fire and police departments. I don’t have another choice, it’s a monopoly.

    4. JW

      5. Your money is not "stolen." You are free to leave the country and choosing to remain a US citizen consents to taxation which is authorized by the US Constitution.

      ahh the bastion of all statists..... the "you are free to leave" argument along with denying that taxation is theft.

      Theft = the involuntary transfer of property

      Money = property
      The transfer is obvious
      And you do not pay your taxes voluntarily. If you dont pay, men with guns will break into your home, point a gun in your face, and then demand you go with them to prison. If you resist your arrest for failing to surrender YOUR OWN PROPERTY you will be killed.

      The constitution has no authority at all.

      And you are not "free" to leave. You need to ask permission to no longer be a US citizen. The form you need to file costs about $500. If you are sufficiently wealthy the government will steal even more of your wealth that remains after it was taxed when earned.

      Claiming you are "free" to leave doesn't negate theft.

  5. And as this example shows, we have to keep combatting the prenicious conflation of social and public goods. There is absolutely nothing about public education or universal healthcare that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable, yet many "credentialed" economists and economic commentators persit in defining them, either disingenuously or out of pure ignorance, as public goods.

  6. "America's youth" are not the ones paying the subsidy. The healthy are subsidizing the unhealthy. It has nothing to do with age, it has to do with health. There are young people who are sick who are subsidized by older people who are healthy. Part of the appeal of the ACA is that a family with a sick kid can now get coverage. If you are in your 50s and saw your policies increase (apparently almost everyone has seen their policies increase), then you are subsidizing that sick kid.

    Just because the govt distorts the market does not mean she is not paying what she should. Healthy people are paying more than they should. Sick people are paying less than they should. Somewhere in between there is someone paying what they should.

    1. give me some facts Jerry....even if you want to make them up.

    2. Jerry - It's gratify to see your admission that government distorts markets. From your earlier comments it appears you also share the belief that health insurance is a public good--perhaps you would care to attempt a rationalization of this fallacy.

      You also claim that health insurance is inherently collectivist, but it is vital we distinguish between collective actions undertaken freely by voluntary individuals
      and collective actions mandated by a governing entity in which individuals must participate under threat of force.

      In a free market, participation in a given plan is a choice made by individuals. They choose to pool their risks, and their individual pricing (and sometimes even their continued participation) is based on actuarial standards. If any participants believe they are paying more than they should, they are free to stop participating at any time allowed by contract.

      The enforced collectivism of governmentally managed healthcare affords no such option. Two equate these two forms of collective action is, as is typical of your comments, either disingenuous or ignorant.

  7. They only thing that public education and Obamacare have in common, is that they are both colossal failures.

  8. Robert, the problem with people such as Francine McKenna is much more serious than ignorance of markets. That female thinks and behaves like an antisocial child, as she makes abundantly clear when revealing her sense of entitlement to health care at a price that she determines.

    Atop that evidence of childishness she piled her unsubstantiated charge of a "red herring", then tossed out her own red herring in the form of an argument from irrelevant precedent. No doubt she'd giggle if appraised of the irony of her deceitfulness, and just to make sure that you don't dwell for too long on any of her aforementioned childishness, she spat out a buzz term and a ridiculous sentimental cliche from the script of leftwing politics.

    Of course, she expects cops, prosecutors, and courts to do her dirty work of fixing things to her personal liking, like a self-absorbed brat who runs to mommy and daddy for help intimidating a sibling or some kids down the street. Now, let's dwell for a moment on the fact that the brat thinks herself entitled to the benefit of aggressive violence carried out while she hides behind the law, so called, and her sentimental nonsense.

    So, never mind teaching brats like Francine McKenna market economics except to trip them. It's way over their swollen heads, and the attempt to do so concedes respect that they don't deserve. Better, instead, to focus on implementing changes to render all such people politically powerless, for children such as Francine McKenna have no right to rule even their own selves.

  9. Meanwhile these sanctimonious frauds say nothing as the Fed grinds millions into poverty.

  10. Francine McKenna too...........will be burned In the near future.
    And she will be first in line to plead with a corrupt government to "do something".
    Some folks have no morals(accepting stolen goods) and some folks are just plain dumb.
    The productive man's burden.

  11. And that folks is the mind you are up against. Most people truly don't want liberty; they want to be secure.

    1. Yet their so-called security is actually just an illusion. After all, whose going to protect you from the protectors?

  12. Jerry,
    My prior company does not offer insurance but contributes money towards an individual plan that I purchased . These plans do not offer ANY maternity coverage. When my wife and I had our second child under this system I ended up paying around 10,000 dollars for the prenatal and post partum care of my wife and new child. For the birth of my third child I was at a different company and paid 500 out of pocket. The cost billed to the insurance company was over 18000 dollars.

    Did I do something "wrong" as you said when I needed health care? Is that market not distorted? Same hospital, same doctor, just two years later.

    Childbirth used to be a cost that most people could afford to pay out of pocket but decades of government intrusion into the system have made it unreachable for most. Try wading through that system and you will learn some things...