tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4374177534066301322.post7758681421749156921..comments2023-11-05T19:05:57.268-08:00Comments on Borazon Drill: How to Recognize and Disprove a Crappy ArticleTony Quatermasshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06774776542299551228noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4374177534066301322.post-20887038763248809012011-03-26T14:20:46.981-07:002011-03-26T14:20:46.981-07:00OK well you're entitled to your opinion, and I...OK well you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. And Walker is entitled to his. And you're entitled to criticize him.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4374177534066301322.post-89328724502872822412011-03-26T13:42:03.378-07:002011-03-26T13:42:03.378-07:00Here's why I think my criticism is fair.
I...Here's why I think my criticism is fair.<br /><br />I'll respond to your points:<br /><br />(a) “excise tax would cause employers to be less generous in their health insurance “<br />This is a broad statement that is only true in limited situations. It is also not what Walker claims in the article. He claims that making employer health insurance less generous was the goal of the excise tax. “Could possibly cause” and “designed to cause” are two different things. His statement also indicates that the excise tax applies to all employer-provided insurance whereas it would actually only apply to a few very expensive plans. This is a standard tactic of propaganda. It would be the same as criticizing a President for raising taxes on Americans because of a bill that raises taxes on income over a million dollars. It makes all Americans believe they will be affected when, in fact, only a very small number will be affected. So, Walker's article spreads misinformation about the Affordable Care Act's excise tax.<br /><br />(b) As for context, it's plainly visible that I took nothing out of context, and the articles he referenced don't support his claims.<br /><br />It is my sincere hope that these writers I criticize will take heed and improve their writing. These problems are not isolated only to them but are quite widespread. <br /><br />I will also say that the excise tax is certainly not above criticism; however, articles such as Walker's which say nothing do nothing for anyone except misinform.<br /><br />The excise tax could be said to be a measure to prevent overcharging for health insurance because as health care becomes cheaper due to the ACA, health insurance should also become cheaper. However, the ACA mandates that a specific amount of health insurance spent on premiums be spent on health care so that should prevent overcharging for health insurance. While having a second-line of defense against overcharging for health insurance is not a bad idea (though perhaps unnecessary), the excise tax doesn't take into account that all costs can increase over time due to inflation. Therefore, it could eventually (but not certainly) hit all insurance premiums. If it were a tax on a variable amount that changed with inflation, it would be more sensible.Tony Quatermasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06774776542299551228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4374177534066301322.post-11978030903751671572011-03-25T09:27:23.028-07:002011-03-25T09:27:23.028-07:00I disagree with your criticism of the Jon Walker a...I disagree with your criticism of the Jon Walker article. While the article itself is of course no great shakes, (a) its statement that the excise tax would cause employers to be less generous in their health insurance benefits is obviously true, and (b) it references previous articles which do reference other sources for the point, although it is a pretty self evident point.<br /><br />I think you are taking a short article, and analyzing it out of context. Which I consider unfair.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.com