MSM Shill for Obamacare

"On the surface, there was nothing unusual about the Oct. 6 telephone call between White House health-care boss Nancy-Ann DeParle and Karen Ignagni, the leading medical-insurance lobbyist in Washington. ... Five days later, Ignagni released an analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers [PWC] that claimed, on the basis of a misleading reading of the bill, that reform could lead to a painful spike in insurance premiums for ordinary Americans. ... The [America's Health Insurance Plans] AHP report was the kind of one-sided study that lobbyists sometimes commission to create scary sound bites. ... The report analyzed the impact of four narrow features of the Senate Finance bill using a worst-case-scenario model; it concluded, as Ignagni says, that 'health care costs [would] increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system. A fairer reading of the bill, which cleared the Finance Committee on Oct. 13 with a 14-9 vote, with one Republican supporter, suggests these projected costs are wildly exaggerated", my emphasis, Michael Scherer and Jay Newton-Small (S&S) at Time, 26 October 2009, link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1930527,00.html.

S&S, shut up. Stop editorializing in a "news" article. Stop shilling for Obamacare. I agree with Big 87654 firm, PWC here. My "back of the envelope" calculations are in PWC's ballpark. Why care if "congressional bean counters" look at this? Will any "cost" calculations over the next ten years be within 50% of being correct anyway? "Misleading" by whose standards? Will any Obamacare supporters' study be "objective"? Who are you kidding? Reality is: you guys want Obamacare to pass. End of story.